When it comes to choosing a conference, the University of Texas has a choice: does it want the nicest house in Compton or an average house in Beverly Hills?

The former is what it would have if it chooses to stick around the Big 12 to keep the Longhorn Network in a Big 12 that definitely won’t have Texas A&M, very likely won’t have Oklahoma and, by extension, Oklahoma State, and possibly won’t have Missouri, either. UT could continue to be the richest person in the neighborhood by a mile and control the local scene. Of course, the issue is that everyone in the area that has scrounged up enough of a down-payment is moving out to nicer places. The latter is what it would own if it becomes an equal TV revenue sharing partner in the Pac-12 (or for that matter, the Big Ten or SEC). In that case, UT would be another rich guy in a whole town full of rich guys, but it also won’t have to worry about the value of the house going down.

It’s a fundamental question about what UT wants/needs to be. The Big 12 as saved last summer was really UT’s dream scenario: they essentially were earning independent-type TV money in a conference with their primary regional rivals. Now that one of their rivals (A&M) might be headed out the door as early as tomorrow and their other main rival (OU) has all but declared it’s heading west to the Pac-12, is the Longhorn Network (which hasn’t even been on the air for a week) more important than UT’s conference? Larry Scott knows, just like Jim Delany and Mike Slive, that equal revenue sharing is a primary tenet of strong conference unity, so he’s not going to let UT have a separate TV deal when the schools in California like USC have already given up unequal shares in the new monster Pac-12 TV contracts.

Now, I consider Bill Powers (UT president) and Deloss Dodds (UT athletic director) to be smart men. The Longhorn athletic department didn’t become the wealthiest in the country (even before any LHN cash started coming) by accident. They likely thought that they controlled all of the cards, where as long as UT stayed in the Big 12, the other big guns of OU and A&M would, too. I certainly thought that way. While it wasn’t a surprise to find that the Big 12 wasn’t long for this world, I didn’t believe that it would be killed off only a year after its Summer 2010 stay of execution.

I can’t blame UT for going out and getting the LHN deal. Any other school that had that type of leverage would’ve done the same thing. However, I also can’t blame either A&M or OU for looking out for their own interests. Most people here know me as the guy that wrote about the possibility of Texas going to the Big Ten last year, and as much as I’d still love to see that happen in many ways, there’s really no better conference deal out there for UT than a Pac-16 that includes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Neither the Big Ten nor SEC would ever grant spots to OSU and Tech and even if they’re not outright political requirements for OU and UT, they ensure that the two power schools won’t be complete geographic outliers.

At this point, I can’t see how OU could rationally stay in the Big 12 (particularly after OU president David Boren’s explicit statement of no-confidence in the conference). (Note that rationality doesn’t always apply in conference decisions.) The Pac-12 would certainly be willing to take them and OSU without having Texas schools coming along, as the Sooner are a top 10 college football brand. It’s the LHN that makes what UT will ultimately decide difficult to predict. There’s just no way that channel could continue to exist within the confines of the Pac-12 (at least as a UT-branded entity). UT is going to have a really nice house no matter where it lives. What will be instructive is whether it wants the nicest house on the block or a better neighborhood. The Longhorns may not be able to have both.

Missouri’s fate is only tied to UT if they don’t get an offer from the SEC. The “risk” portion of the risk/reward calculation for Mizzou staying with the B12 is much higher than UT, OU, OSU, & TT, as they could easily be left behind with the dregs of the conference. If they get an offer from the SEC, they will (and should) take it without blinking.

Actually, this brings up something I have been wondering. I assume that Mizzou would prefer to head to the B10 as it is a better cultural, geographic, and educational fit. Is it possible that they could head to the SEC with the idea that they could always leave for the B10 if Notre Dame comes around in 10 or 20 years?

Put another way, would Jim Delany be willing to let Mizzou go to the SEC with the thought that if he eventually needed them as a good fit to round out the conference at 14 or 16, he could still poach them away? This all assumes that the B10 stay above or even with the SEC monetarily, of course. But in a universe where the B12 has imploded and the B10/SEC dollars are roughly equal, I could see the fans and academics willing to ditch the SEC after less than a decade for the B10.

If they were to get into the conference, I don’t think Missouri would leave the SEC in the near future. They’d just be like VT in that they’d be unwilling to stab a conference in the back after getting a lifeline out of a bad situation.

2. I think you’re right about everything, though perhaps a little high on the B1G’s willingness to take Mizzou in my opinion. As you said, they’d be a round-out add — and they’re definitely a round-out add — but I’ve got a hunch someone better might be available. As has been said elsewhere, Mizzou just doesn’t have anything to hang its hat on.

Ultimately, I don’t think the Big Ten simply doesn’t want Missouri. I mean, they’d potentially take them if they needed them to fill out the conference due to other moves, but there is zero chance that the Big Ten goes after Missouri as a specific target school. Not unless their academics or athletic appeal changes significantly — they have had a certain level of success athletically, but aren’t really a name that would move the needle at all.

I actually think there are many on here who vastly overrate the appeal of Mizzou to the Big Ten.

So, is Larry Scott totally immovable on the LHN? He won’t give Texas even a little concession, considering that the current Pac members will make more money based on Texas’ entrance, and Texas will give up a lot? What if Texas says, “Okay, we can get the same deal from the B1G as from the Pac, so we’re going to the B1G unless you cut us a deal, Larry”? What does Scott do in that case?

@Christian. I sure hope not. UT thinks by the virtue of being Texas they should get special treatment. But USC, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, all have decided to be equal….so should Texas. Give ’em an inch and next you know UT would be killing their 3rd conference.

Larry Scott’s reply: “Fine, but you will have to risk giving up, and almost certainly diminishing the Red River Rivalry, and you’ve probably already lost A&M. It’s hard to maintain a national brand without the high profile games.”

Texas will still get it’s own network in the Pac-12… kind of. It will have to share with Texas Tech and become the Lone Star Network. That’s the way the Pac-12 is set up, with regional networks each covering two local schools.
So the LHN would have to morph into one of these regional networks, and it might work out for the better. I think ESPN is starting to see that they way overspent on the LHN, which is struggling for content and viewers. Adding another school to the mix (Tech) would make those efforts twice as easy. It’s not often you get a mulligan on a disasterous decision like the LHN, but ESPN may just get lucky.

My GUESS (and I can’t emphasize enough that it’s just a guess) is that they’ll tweak the revenue model so that the local teams get a substantial chunk of the revenue generated from the local networks, while the national TV deals and the overall Pac-16 network revenue get split equally. That way Texas still makes more than, say, Wazzu, but not a lot more.

Absolutely not. If you don’t accept the equal model then there is create the Bevo conference (by joining one that will bend to their will, or from the ground up made up of schools that also will), or independent.

4. (Summer 2011) OU flirts with idea of getting out of UT’s shadow. Will Scott take OU/OSU and force UT’s hand once again?

My guess is Texas will try desperately to salvage Big XII by adding at least 1 school from either MWC or CUSA. BYU won’t come despite Big XII offering automatic BCS bid. If Texas does accept PAC 16 membership, Scott is going to regret it. They will be a pain in the ass and will likely lead to the breakup of the conference a la the MWC schism from the 16 team WAC a few years back.

Bingo. I argued in the previous post that in a short time (within a decade I’d argue) a PAC-16 will lead to a NewPAC(ish)-8 with all of the powerhouse teams and everyone else in the existing PAC-16/2. A sixteen team conference is inherently unstable as a team (or, more to the point, a group of teams) has more options around leaving when they decide that they don’t like the way things are going.

On thing that prevented TX from going to the B1G was the “tech problem” famously referenced in the email forwarded to Delany by tOSU Pres Gordon Gee.

Now, with OK/OKST going west, A&M going east, the “tech problem” has disappeared. Lamb suggests that this was engineered by Delany — or is accidental. Thus, the “long con.”

My issue with Lamb’s imagination is that Texas DOES still have a “tech problem.” No scenario I have read so far gives TTech a “soft landing” that allows TX to go alone to the B1G or to the Pac12/16/18. TX to the Pac-16 is assumed to be bringing TTech along. Otherwise, it’s independence for TX along with exile for TTech (maybe a Big East invite to pair it with TCU?).

Anyway, imo, Lamb is having a fun dream/fantasy worthy of the TV show “Lost” that he references.

If Missouri is offered — and accepts — an SEC bid, then who in that list do you actually think would get a 16th spot in the Pac-12 over Tech? The pickings are slim.

Bottom line is that Tech is in a state with a ton of households. Even if you exclude the Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Corpus Christi and Beaumont markets to the East, there are STILL 1.2 million households in the western half of the state. If you haven’t noticed… the Pac-12 is launching a TV network that will be partially predicated on new viewers.

You don’t think the Pac-12 would want to have a presence in Texas even without the Longhorns? C’mon. Again, this is about revenue.

This isn’t fantasy, this is economic reality. Even the entire state of Kansas is about 800,000 households. Texas Tech’s half of the state is 50% larger than that excluding all those markets I mentioned.

Tech has been hitching its wagons to Oklahoma lately. They’re quietly becoming a quasi-package with the Sooners and Cowboys. Texas joining is the ultimate prize for the Pac-12, but it will go forward with 16 teams with or without. And especially if Missouri leaves for the SEC, Tech will be a part of that expansion plan.

remember when Frank first started talking about Texas? It seems clear that the end game was always 16 schools and that Delany wasn’t going to settle for less than at least 2 football crown jewels. Other sports would make nice settings for the jewels in expansion but not a priority. All other factors including academics serve as a foundation for talking points about institutional fit etc. but not the reason for expansion. The interest & discussion with Texas & Notre Dame never really ended.

1. If Missouri is not an option, then it is very much in doubt whether the Pac 12 will expand at all. And if they do expand, there is no guarantee that they go to 16 when they could just go to 14 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. While the Pac 12 apparently prefers having 16 schools over 14 schools for scheduling purposes, there’s no reason to think that the Pac 12 will expand to 16 if they’ll lose money on the deal.

2. Even if the Pac 12 does choose to expand to 16 in spite of a potential move by Missouri to the SEC, there is no guarantee that Texas Tech will be the 16th admitted team. It is unclear that Texas Tech can deliver a substantial portion of the Texas audience by itself and does not have a natural partner for a regional network. As such, there is a significant chance that the Pac 12 would invite Iowa State or Nevada or someone first. Or, they could choose to take the high risk, high reward approach and invite the University of British Columbia.*

3. As it is by no means certain that Texas Tech will be invited into the Pac 12 without Texas, the Texas Legislature will still have an interest in forcing Texas to watch out for them.

4. While Texas Tech would certainly like to hitch itself to Oklahoma to ensure themselves a spot in a new conference, there is no reason to assume that Oklahoma is going to watch out for Texas Tech, particularly if doing so is detrimental to their own interests.

*UBC is not athletically ready to join Division 1 football at present, let alone a BCS conference. However, the influx of money from a massive TV deal with the Pac 12 will help them to quickly advance their athletics to the point that they could compete in the NCAA. Even so, it is unclear that UBC would accept an invitation given their situation. Regardless, it is an interesting possibility if Texas isn’t coming.

The most reliable source if probably the straight-shootin T. Boone Pickens: he says

“But DeLoss had too many cards and he played every damn one of them. I think that’s too bad. You get tired of saying ‘aaah’ while you get something shoved down your throat.”

“You can fix the Big 12 now, but it’s got to go to an equal deal, and it’s not equal.”

So there you have it… The Sooners want an equal conference (the foundation of all stable conferences). Texas probably won’t budge… Say hello to the PAC 14. The only question what UT decides to do afterwards?

Boone is a hypocrite. Just a few weeks ago he was on the verge of demanding A&M to leave the state of Texas since it was no longer wanting to be in the Bevo10 Conference. Now he is charging straight ahead to join another conference?

Where was the Oklahoma State leadership when Nebraska and Texas A&M were fighting the Longhorns and their continual pushing of the envelope of gaining more power and more wealth? When A&M brought forth their grievences a couple of months ago, OSU backed the Longhorns. Now OSU is starting to show a little backbone as a better option opens up to them to join the PAC-Whatever Conference and get equal revenue sharing.

They will get to that point eventually; I think you’re right on the time horizon.

But that article could be relevant due to the fact that NBC has probably changed dramatically with Comcast in charge.

Ebersol was easily their strongest defender at the network; with him out, I’m really interested to see how NBC’s relationship with ND changes; especially with respect to their next contract negotiation.

I think it could come to a head by 2014 (when ND will start to negotiate their new TV deal). If Brian Kelly also fails to revive the Irish (I’m not saying he will fail, just if he does), what sort of offers do they get? The Lou Holtz era is getting farther away and Kelly is thought to be a great coach. At some point it becomes who ND is. On the other hand, if Kelly gets them back to multiple BCS bowls by then, ND will get another 10 year deal with NBC.

I don’t think joining a conference will have any major impact on the success, or lack thereof, of ND’s football team. The reasons to join or not join a conference relate to matters other than on-the-field football results…..the huge exception to this being, of course, the size of the next NBC contract, is any………..

When I want good information, I always go to “Xlog: A Rise in Xcellence, A New Era in Xpert Web Logging Begins”…

The premise of this article is false. Notre Dame has been able to get consistently good players (if you believe recruiting rankings), nearly always in the 10-15 range and #2 in 2008. Meanwhile, South Florida was 5th last year… in the Big East. No one can make the argument that South Florida has a talent advantage over Notre Dame. Well, no one except this guy apparently.

The way we will know ND is irrelevant is when they are bad and no one notices. Clearly we are nowhere near that point.

The end lessons are true that its not over until its over. We were closer to the end of the Big 12 last year than we are YET this year.

And again there is that distortion that DeLo$$ Dodd$ is trying to take from others. He’s, as T Boone said, simply playing all his cards. He’s trying to maximize his brand, not take it out of the hide of others. Everyone in the Big 12 has had the opportunity to benefit from Texas maximizing its $. USC and UCLA were unhappy about sharing in the Pac, but didn’t have a choice. Texas has choices, but probably not particularly palatable ones (again assuming OU leaves). Frank’s Compton could refer to a Big 12 remnant, or, if they really wanted to tick off the Aggies for being the 1st one out the door, the SEC.

Bullet, while I agree with you that nothings over until we decide it is. It wasn’t over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor………….. but I think that we are closer to the end of the Big 12 now then we were last year. OU is gone with or without Texas, and that is the difference this time around.

I don’t think that A&M would even be upset with Texas coming to the SEC. I don’t think Nebraska would be upset with Texas joining the Big Ten. It comes down to Texas playing with the same set of rules as an equal in a conference. The issue is the LHN. Which Texas would have to give up to join the SEC or the BIG or the PAC. That would be Texas, dropping it’s tail between its legs and joining a pack, that would be enough. Texas has shown no interest in giving up the LHN though, so I see them as independent and without some key games like OU and A&M when the dust settles.

There’s that false info again that the SEC shares everything. The Pac (starting this year), the ACC and the B1G share. The SEC allows the schools to keep their tertiary rights, so the LHN would fit right in. Florida made $8 million last year on their network programming. MSU had a few hundred thousand. SEC is closer to the Big 12 model than the B1G/ACC/Pac 12 revenue sharing model.

After watching how things played out last year I do not think I like the idea of Texas joining the BIG. I see Texas as a destructive force because of their selfish tendencies to lift themselves above others by crook or by crook. You would think that the competitive advantage they have on the field and in recruiting and in facilities would be plenty. It seems that Texas is like some warped personalities that feel they have to rig the game in any case. No longhorns and no long horn network for me please.
I would add this though, If they came in with say a Notre Dame it would be a powerful addition to the BIG. ND would also help to mitigate some of the academic deficiencies of both NE and TX. ND also has a huge ego problem but and would have to give up totally its independence. An uphill situation for both but if the landscape is really changing again we know the guy that moves slowest in musical cheers is the most unhappy one.

Both of these entities understand well that THEY must be happy. With choices beginning to dwindle, they still yet have an opportunity to make that decision before it’s actually made for them.

@Stv
You can say what you want about Texas greed. But ND making up for academic deficiencies of Texas? In what the Big 10 Presidents care most about, graduate research, ND would be the most academically deficient school in the conference. And Texas could complain about the academic deficiencies of Ohio St., IU, Purdue, Mich St., Iowa (which are all outstanding schools). There’s noone in the Big 10 that would look down on UT academically except perhaps Michigan. Most of the schools would consider them peers.

Someone should get Dodds a copy of A Beautiful Mind and reply the bar scene over and over for him until he figures out that sometimes trying to maximize your brand leaves you and your teams at the bar alone while your former conference mates go home with the girls.

The 5 left behind offered UT, OU and A&M their share of the UNL and CU exit fees if they would stay.

UT and OU refused, saying noone should get a special deal, it should just be split according to conference rules. A&M, on the other hand, insisted on a guarantee. Texas Tech actually whined at one point that they wanted part of that deal and was mad it was offered to the other 3 and not them.

So UT and OU took the high road. A&M and Tech took the low road. Its amazing how much misinformation there is out there in the media (and I’m talking the newspapers-not just the internet which has always had it).

It does look like OU managed to get the spotlight off the Aggies and SEC.

Anyone else get annoyed that LSU players and headlines were talking about SEC supremacy because LSU beat Oregon, despite BYU winning at Oxford, Boise winning in Atlanta and Utah St. nearly winning at Auburn?

UK, UGA, and Mississippi are not in the 6
Auburn was in the 6, but Cam is gone (Sorta like UGA after Herschel went to the next level)

The 6 are not fixed, which is why the SEC is so annoying. As soon as Tennessee gets smacked down to dust, South Carolina rises from their ashes. If USC gets knocked down, you know it will be UGA feeding on their bones. Like it or not the majority of the B1G since WW II has been carried by Ohio State or Michigan. Now the B1G has PSU and UNL as well, so hopefully the B1G will develop their own 6 to level the field. If it does happen I still suspect Indiana and Minnesota will not be in the 6.

UGA was in the 6 a few years ago, which is why the fans are so mad. And any loss to Boise is big news in the SEC. You should have heard the local UGA fans about what a blowout this was going to be because UGA has SEC speed.

Every conference works that same way. One falls down and another rises up. The difference is that certain kings haven’t fallen back much recently (OSU, OU, etc).

The 6 are pretty fixed. UF, Tenn, UGA, AL, AU, LSU. Those teams have 33 championship game appearances and every championship game win. The remaining teams have 5 appearances and 0 wins. One of those appearances was due to AL having a postseason ban. In 4 of the 5 appearances, the lower class team was ranked #19 or lower. Those 6 have the 6 best conference records since 1992, and all of them except LSU are over .600 (LSU is .580). Arkansas is at .465 and no one else is above .400. Those 6 teams have every BCS berth for the conference except Arkansas last year.

Every so often, a school like South Carolina can “rise up”, go 5-3 and hope the top teams in their division all have a bad year (like what happened last year). I wouldn’t bet on any of them winning anything substantial though.

I think the extra prep time really puts the OR offense at a disadvantage. The P10 teams never got weeks or months to prepare for them, but BSU, OSU, AU and LSU did. OR needs more power to compete in the big bowls or early season games.

On the other hand, look at Boise. Everyone says they have a finesse offense and can’t compete without extra prep time, but even good defenses don’t shut down their offense with extra prep time. Why can’t OR achieve the same results?

Not that it matters that much for the conversation, but I’d argue stable conferences produce equal revenue sharing rather than the other way around. The PAC-10 last year wasn’t anymore equal revenue than the Big 12 is. The conference was in a position of strength though and the non-LA schools voted overwhelmingly to go to an equal revenue model. Since UCLA and USC leaving the conference wasn’t a viable threat, the other schools had no problem voting for it. If there had been a viable threat of the LA schools leaving, I don’t think they would have voted for it, but that wouldn’t be unequal revenue sharing causing instability, it would have been instablility preventing equal revenue sharing.

I’ll go a step further and say that if the models change again and a lot of big programs open more up to leaving their current conferences, that the equal revenue sharing could cause instability.

“The PAC-10 last year wasn’t anymore equal revenue than the Big 12 is”
Yeah but the Pac 10 has a unique situation. The west, population-wise is extremely California heavy. And there are far more Universities out east or in the Midwest and south then there are in the west region. So the west simply does not have as many major college options as do some of these other regions. Some great academic options but overall not as many options.

Found this link on Hornfans with a link to Kansas-its a twist I thought about this morning, but thought noooo-not enough close neighbors…..Just proves everyone is looking at everything and anything is still possible.

I wouldn’t offer UT any special rights. If the LHN can fit better in the ACC with their current TV contracts, that’s one thing, but I wouldn’t give UT anything extra and certainly no conference FB games (they can have replay rights, though).

FSU and Miami could form a network, possibly with UF, and make good money. Certainly the NC schools could make one. GT would need UGA, and Clemson would need SC. UVA, VT and MD maybe. BC would be SOL.

Just maybe… The B1G is illustrating that academics and research are considerations that won’t be compromised in the pursuit of expanding its football brand/imprint, and they are at least as important as athletics. The intelligence of this blog still remains in what I believe is the most accurate reflection of the perspective of TPTB, and the prism through which this all should continue to be viewed: FTT’s opening salvo (you had me at hello) of “Think Like a University President”. TPTB likely believe what many across the blogosphere (thinking like fans or ADs) either ignore or forget. The B1G already considers itself the preeminent collection of combined academic, research and athletic universities in the country. Its dominance in and commitment to research is unquestioned, and its position in academia, particularly among state universities and on the graduate school level, is unparalleled (looking at this through my prism says we take this seriously enough that we’d punish one of our own – Nebraska – as a challenge, instead of engaging in cronyism that dilutes the true value of our brand, until the appropriate level of commitment is shown by Nebraska to warrant reacquiring AAU status). The B1G’s revenue generation in athletics is at the top of the heap, indeed is the new paradigm, and it’s scheduled to leap by even more dramatic bounds within the next five years (can you say BTN2 and contract renewal?).

Consider the following. While other conferences are struggling for survival and/or securing the future, the B1G has already won. We talk a lot about the performance of the BTN. We don’t talk enough about the escalator effect that will occur once Fox recoups its initial investment in the BTN in just a couple of years. The per school take will skyrocket again. Indeed, what’s the worst case scenario if we stayed at 12 for another 20 years, assuming Notre Dame is still independent? Our schools will be taking home $30M/year, courtesy of our current maneuvers/position, which will still be more than any other conference, (especially with Pac16 dilution). Are we that concerned about National Championships in football? Even if we are, we will always still have a great shot at them: we have four Kings on our team and two very strong Princes. There’s no way super conferences happen without the direction and leadership of the B1G, whether we’re at 12 or 16. Not only are we the B1G; we’re the B1G dog here. Guys, we know what we’re doing. Have there been any better conference moves (including integration) in the last 2 decades than either PSU or Nebraska? Patience is a virtue.

Look to the end game. The B1G can watch with amusement while all the other chess pieces are played, all of which serve to circle the wagons around securing ND (plus possibly/presumably additional population growth-centered, academically stable universities. I’m not saying we’re oblivious to expanding, we just don’t need to compromise or rush). We don’t need to react, much less overreact, to anything. Yes, UT would be great, but only because of the state’s population. Would you marry a schizophrenic supermodel who will destroy your family and ultimately leave, scarring your reputation forever? Yes, Stanford, UF, UNC, UVa, FSU, Maryland, USC, TAMU, etc. would be great, but we can’t have everyone! Yes, OK would be great from a football perspective, but we aren’t taking OkSU (can it be more clear that this is a package deal? That’s the Pac12′s game). Even alone, OK is perhaps a rung too low on the academic/research front (Nebraska comparisons are irrelevant because OK is bound to OkSU). No addition, even Texas or ND would make us greater than we’ve been for a century (insert Legends and Leaders commercial here); it would only enhance what we’ve already created. Notre Dame rightfully is clinging on to their independence for as long as they can. However, ND alone among the remaining Kings fits within our footprint and still offers us the national footprint we seek without disrupting what feels right about being the B1G. When they enter, I hope it’s done with an understanding that we’ve respected their history enough all these years such that integration can be complete and permanent.

I’m ok with waiting unless another King of academia, research, AND football/population growth centers comes calling. I think – and hope – that’s what our university presidents are thinking.

Could not agree more. I fully support your analysis. Having participated in two “MoU” tours this summer, one in India with an IIT and IIS, and one in China with Peking and Tsingua Universities, the Big 10 will have its hands full keeping its rankings at the graduate level (especially if the Tea Party exerts greater political control domestically). Quite simply, we are in the battle of the century. Logically, if your domestic student body is 20% the size of both of your primary competitors (India and China) and if your students typically perform significantly lower in math and science than your competitors’ students (in the most recent OECD results [much of South Asia outperforms us]), when the trajectory of investment in higher education and in research is greater among our competitors, and of course when your competitors are “pro-science and pro-math” do you really expect to maintain your rankings? In fact, I am so depressed after writing this, I think the Big Ten should disband its sports programs🙂. The Big Ten should consider the old bromide “core competencies” and focus on graduate research and graduate education, period. Plenty of schools do a much better job in educating undergraduates and many schools are more than willing to become a source of entertainment for their states’ residents. Why do we need to be “all things to all people”?

I just don’t think the sports and academic sides are that connected. There is a little bit of academic prestiege that can be lost, but that’s the only loss. None of the Big Ten schools will be any better or worse because they are in a sports conference with teams that are better or worse than they are.

(And off topic, but I don’t think think the Tea Party influence is bad at all, in fact I welcome it given the absolute waste I see with colleges🙂 )

While not wanting to venture into a taboo political discussion, you are partially correct. Our universities compete in a very bad paradigm, relying on research grants from the National Science Foundation. It would be better if state governments, particularly Illinois, had their fiscal houses in order so that they could prioritize higher education and not need redistributed income from the feds. Universities ought to be in the business of preparing students to be productive members of the private workforce, where they will get paid to make the next technological advance.

From my very partisaned Illini perspective, I couldn’t be much happier with the latest round of expansion now that we have all our trophy games played annually. I can hardly wait for 2017 when we return to the nine-game conference schedule so we can play the Legends more often.

However, I believe Jim Delany’s robust cost/benefit analysis about multi-team expansion is instructive. The purpose of conferences is to play each other more often. Secondary is moving into additional markets for BTN revenue. While Texas may be an elusive pipe-dream for us, I still believe the Mid-Atlantic states are ripe for poaching if the SEC destabilizes the ACC. Why wouldn’t Delany, the UNC grad, want Maryland, Virginia, UNC and Duke as part of his legacy? They all add to the CIC’s academic cache and move the BTN into growth markets. Plus, we become the quintessential basketball league while adding more football wins for our premier members. Win-Win.

As an IL alum, I’d like to get your opinion on IL’s B10 rivalries. Would you rate the other 11 teams in terms or importance of the FB game to you, on a scale of 0-10?

We don’t get a ton of IL alumni on here, and this is always one of the issues we wonder about. Any other IL alum that wants to do it is also more than welcome. Graduation years might be helpful clues if there are differences of opinion.

Some perspective here is needed. Our universities simply cannot be all consumed by athletics; these are our pastimes, not our raison d’etre. Our country really is in a fight for tomorrow, and our institutions of higher education have to been the sources of innovations, human and technological. I have to believe athletics is fuel to the fire, not the end all, be all. What continues to impress me most about The B1G is how well we incorporate all considerations. Thanks for the validation.

Its a problem when alumni value winning a football game over the value of their degrees and the stain something like what went on at Miami can have on that value (I’m using Miami as an example of the bad stuff, not of a school whose alumni don’t care).

I’ve always laughed it off as being an NU grad during the “Stop State at 28” losing days, then a U of Ill grad with only basketball success, but I’ve always cared as much as knowing about the Nobel Prize winners and recent research/tech advances coming from my alma mater as NU’s improvement on the gridiron. I’m certainly not sending my kids to a college primarily based on who has the best football experience… The really cool thing about our schools is we don’t have to compromise on either metric. Speaking of Miami, it is notable and an interesting turn of events that NU is marketing itself as ‘Chicago’s B1G Team’. Alums and Fans are two separate groups; Miami certainly shows that, for better or worse.

Well said. This relates to my question on the last blog – who has had the most successful expansion. I say the B10. You can make the argument with others (the ACC adding a lot of football powers), the SEC being able to get to a CCG. But the B10 took what was already the top power conference and made it better, but has done so without taking any marginal schools or without upsetting its core institutions. The ACC is a much better football conference than it once was, but it has certainly given up its basketball-based identity in in the pursuit of football glory. The B10 has not really done that. I continue to believe that the B10 is patient. They will let others prove that a 14/16 team conference will work.

My only complaint with the B10 is the divisions. I still think they should have not done divisions and just had the top two play each season as the itle game. I know the NCAA has some silly rule requiring divisions, but I would have simply ignored it or forced the NCAA to change it. It is a silly rule.

The rule makes sense. It was designed for leagues which were so big that it was difficult for everybody to play each other, so they split into divisions to emphasize playing at least some teams regularly, with a title game at the end to settle the conference championship. If you’re small enough that you can compete as a single section (or at least your membership is willing to go along with that), you don’t need a title game very badly.

You don’t get to ignore rules just because you think they are silly, and you can’t force the NCAA to change it. The rule is smart. The only way a CCG makes sense is if there are separate divisions. Otherwise, it’s an in conference bowl game.

SH’s position also completely ignores the history of the actual rule. It was put in place at the behest of a large Division II conference whose teams never qualified for the Division II playoffs and who wanted to be able to have a nice season-ending event without compromising playing rivals during the regular season (accomplished in division play).

While I agree that the patience has been a good thing, waiting may not be a good option at this point. I also think that the conference should make a statement that it will not advance past 14 teams at the most. 2 more really good additions could be way better than 4 so, so ones. Because all we are doing is adding numbers.

Real good column by Kyle Lamb. He has it exactly right. I think the only question is what the Pac12 does after adding OU and OSU. Do they take Missouri and Kansas? Texas Tech and Missouri? Or do they reserve two spots for Texas?

Regardless, Texas to the Big 10 is the angle that everyone´s forgotten, but it looks like the most likely scenario at this point.

I doubt Texas would be forced to give up the LHN in the Big 10. There´s no reason for that to be the sticking point.

If Texas wants to keep the LHN, then it´s pretty simple: They don´t share in the BTN revenue. Revenue is then split among 13 schools, not 14, and, at the same time, the BTN and the LHN go Tier 1 throughout Texas.

Is it possible for the BTN to take the LHN over and cross it over to the BTN, this would cut through the chase of getting the BTN on basic cable tier. (I assume that the LHN would be on the basic cable tier already)
If that were the case, The that problem would be solved. No?

How about if they allowed them to wind down the network over 3 – 4 years. It would not be cold turkey. They would also only get only half their league payout until they are fully on board. Texas has to decide if they really want to be in a conference or independence is a better fit for them.

I sure hope the Big Ten would NEVER do that. It is that kind of garbage that destroys conferences.

If Texas gets different rules, why doesn’t Ohio State, why doesn’t Michigan? Screw Indiana, they had low football attendance, lets cut their BTN take.
My point is, everyone plays by and agrees to the same rules. No exceptions, if Texas can’t agree to the BTN having all of the secondary rights, then no invite for Texas. These are the rules, this is the freaking BIG TEN, not the MAC.

Someone with more knowledge can correct me if I am wrong when it comes to the SEC television rights, but the LHN can exist in the SEC, but only as a third-tier rights — none of this “I have a contract with ESPN to show multiple football games exculsively on my own channel!”

The SEC package, I believe, shows all of the football games on television as it is; so the LHN provision to have at least two games on the station would not occur.

No. The SEC schools actually get to select a game to withhold for their own network. I don’t know what the restrictions are on what they can withhold. Maybe one of the SEC people can shed more light on that. Florida made $8 million from the Sunshine network last year which televised their sports (but not exclusively Florida sports).

FW Aggie – I brought this point up last year. The LHN could easily exist in the SEC. Each SEC team gets to keep one game for PPV, although its usually a Sunbelt or 1-AA game. As I’m most familiar with LSU’s 3rd tier package with Cox, I’ll use that as the example. After CBS, the ESPN family of networks, and the syndicated SECN pick their games, either to televise or sell to FSN or CSS, each school can cut their own deal for the leftovers. During the 2010-11 academic year, 6 men’s basketball games and 19 baseball games were televised by Cox. LSU produces their own PPV football telecast outside of the Cox agreement. Cox also show re-plays of all LSU football games, but they have to use their own cameras, announcers, etc. Women’s and other Olympic sports are also televised on Cox. Cox doesn’t show or produce the various coaches shows as they produces by LSU and syndicated. Cox does provide LSU with various weekly “round-up” type shows.

Its certainly not enough to fill up a 24 hour channel, but its a lot of content, and Cox shows NBA Hornets games, high schools games, multi-directional college and Tulane games, and minor league baseball games. Cox probably could do more, but I think they’d rather have more live content, even if its not LSU. For a state with less population than the Houston metro area, LSU may be getting more bucks for their bang than UTx is with their LHN.

LSU’s deal with Cox is very similar to what the other SEC have in the way of 3rd tier rights, with the exception of the MS schools and Vandy. I think UF, UGa, Bama, and Kentucky all have better deals than LSU.

UTx, on the other hand, could probably fill up a network under the SEC’s 3rd tier restrictions with more Olympic and Women’s coverage, original programming, and classic telecasts from ESPN/ABC.

One thing to remember about the SEC contracts, as well, is that the SEC did not sell their digital rights. From time to time, on Cox, I can see for example, the ESPN telecast of the 1988 Earthquake game with Auburn, with a skinny, baby-faced Chris Fowler serving as the sideline reporter.

I think UK has the best deal for 3rd tier rights because of basketball where the values can grow quickly. UNC is #1 and KU is high up the list. If anybody has the dosh link handy, add it here and you can see how schools with solid basketball get added value.

Zeek, a small aside, if I may. The irony to me, as someone who grew up in Texas and went to graduate school at UM (I also lived in Austin for a short time), is that Texas is still, in many ways, a perfect fit for the B1G: a large flagship school, huge grad and UG population,
highly regarded professional schools, research orientation, etc. Geography is an issue, but surmountable, if they wanted to do it. I agree with you about the SEC and B1G, but I think
it’s shame in a way. Had Delany gotten what I think he wanted–UT, ND and NE–that would be the ultimate super-conference at 14. Unfortunately UT doesn’t share that particular vision.

I just made it back from Arlington. Wow! What a great start to the CFB season. I was optimistic about the Oregon game, as Les and the Tigers always seem to respond well to pressure. Whether it be hurricanes or Les-to-Michigan rumors, you can now add bar fights/suspensions to the adversity overcome checklist for the Mad Hatter.

Congrats on your Tigers Alan, 2 schools have now shown the other PAC schools how to control the Ducks. I really think they will take the Tide this year but stumble on a lesser foe. They are still my pick for the MNC game. I will have to see how UNL affects the B1G this season before I know who is in the B1G CCG to meet the Tigers. If OU jumps in the next week or two, they will get enough bad calls in league to see their hopes fade.

Above you asked for my impressions about Illinois’ football rivalries. Based on my experiences, graduating in 1999, Illini fans only hate two schools: Michigan (Muck Fichigan) & Iowa (series hiatus from 1953-1966), both occupants of the opposing division. However, it is a welcome change to play our three trophy annually: The Cannon with Purdue, Illibuck with Ohio State and the Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln politically correct replacement with Northwestern. As a Bears fan that believes that the Packers are the ultimate form of evil, its nice to have my favorite rival Wisconsin in the Leaders division, even though they got hosed in division alignment.

Thanks Duff. The game really had a BCS feel to it. With the BCS NCG in the Superdome, we are all hopeful that things continue to work out for the Tigers, but it won’t be easy. LSU can take a breather this week (Northwestern State), then its back to one of the most difficult Septembers ever with a Thursday night game at StarkVega$ against #16 Miss State followed by another road game at Morgan Town against #19 West Virginia.

In honor of the Tigers first ever trip to West Virginia, WVU AD Oliver Luck was able to pursuade his BoS to allow beer sales at Milan-Puskar Stadium. Mixing Cajuns and Hillbillies in a confined space with alcohol should be a socialogical case study. I’ll report back to you all with my evaluation as to whether the ‘eer fans are SEC-worthy.

Make that Texas, Oklahoma, ND and Pitt/Maryland and I’d be on board. As much as I hate Notre Dame if they are going anywhere I have to say they belong in the B1G. We need an eastern school to leverage PSU, we need a good academic school to balance OU.

I loved KU last year for that reason but got clobbered on here. KU would do best in the B1G or PAC where their basketball “brand” will be preserved and enhanced. IU vs KU in the B1G or KU vs UCLA in the PAC.

I’d rather have Kansas than Mizzou. But, really, I’d rather have neither. If we want basketball, Syracuse is a better get than Kansas based on academics and potential market (yes, I know Cuse is not in the AAU).

And that ignores that if the Big Ten could poach ACC teams, then schools like Maryland or UNC are better choices than the non UT/OU Big 12 teams.

Texas to the ACC is a bit far fetched, but also could make a certain amount of sense. I think PAC-16 still makes more sense as they could anchor a southwestern division with Oklahoma, but the ACC would be crazy not to offer the incentives the PAC-12 might be hesisitant too.

Texas (and probably Texas Tech) would allow the ACC to rearrange the divsions so that Florida State and Miami could be in the same divsion and might also allow for the Carolina schools to get back together (although that would be easier with 16). Without looking through and knowing all the rivalries, I could see is something like this:

Somebody please explain the Maryland uniforms to me. They are so offensive I must re-evaluate my support for them joining the B1G. I confess I have no artistic sensibility, but I’m not sure this requries any to intepret.

As a Maryland alum, I want to apologize for the hideous uniforms. There are better ways of blending red, white, black and gold than trying to turn the state flag into a football jersey. (It sort of reminded me of that silly “Turn Ahead The Clock” MLB promotion from the late 1990s — remember the “Mercury Mets”?).

Nice win, though a bit too nerve-wracking for my tastes. (And kudos to Terrapin radio broadcaster Johnny Holliday, who went 2-for-2 Monday — doing the Nationals’ pre- and post-game shows in their victory over the Dodgers from Nats Park in the afternoon, then scooting up to College Park for the football game.)

“Neither the Big Ten nor SEC would ever grant spots to OSU and Tech and even if they’re not outright political requirements for OU and UT, they ensure that the two power schools won’t be complete geographic outliers.”

Last year in an interview to a Texas newspaper, Slive said he could make room for 4 schools…he was implying OU, OSU, UT, and A&M. I know we linked to it here, but it would take forever to find it.

As much as the Longhorns seem to be trying to save their network, I’m beginning to think the SEC may end up being their conference. I believe the SEC would prevent them from airing a conference game, or airing high school stuff, but otherwise it would work. Since the SEC already has A&M, would they take other schools to get the Longhorns? UT, TT, and Missouri, maybe?

Texas is a prize to capture – no doubt about it. With that said, the rumors have been that the addition of Texas A&M was to be the western boundary of the conference expansion. Any other conference additions would come from the eastern side of the current boundary.

The problem with the addition of either Texas or Missouri to the SEC would cause an imbalance in the western sub-division to cause one of the teams to move to the eastern sub-conference, unless there teams #15 and #16 have been idenitfied to play in the eastern sub-division.

“A source close to Texas put the chances of UT going to the Pac-12 at “50 to 60 percent” on Friday night and had those odds increasing as of Saturday. But on Sunday, those percentages dropped to “20 percent,” according to the source, because Texas wanted to explore ways to hold onto the Longhorn Network.”

“The $300 million, 20-year contract Texas signed with ESPN has become important to UT’s board of regents”

These were the big take aways, that and he said it would be ARMAGEDDON if OU left.

I wish…but for Texas I think it’s more of a “We’re going too. See ya around….give us a call when you pull your head out of your ass”. I’m thinking they will have a seat at the table. I think a PAC 18 is just as workable as a PAC 16.

What’s significant about all of this (not just this latest turn on the rapidly changing expansion carousel), is that it used to be the 1st tier that generated the money. In the Big 12, 1st tier was $60 million, 2nd tier was $20 million and 3rd tier was very little as far as TV was concerned. Now 2nd tier is $90 million ($9 million/school) and UT is getting $15 million for 3rd tier. It calls into question all the assumptions about where the revenues are coming from, what’s important and how conferences and schools should think about their various rights. Major change can lead to major instability, not just in one conference.

I don’t trust Chip Brown at all, but Missouri receiving feelers from the Big Ten makes me feel better. No offense to these schools, but if at the end of the day, the Big Ten ends up with Iowa State and Rutgers, I’m going to be angry.

Oklahoma (unlikely), Notre Dame, Missouri, Kansas. Maybe Texas (God only knows). This is a proud, Midwestern conference, we ought to keep it that way as much as possible.

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – Atlantic Coast Commissioner John Swofford shot down a report Monday night that his league was considering adding Texas, Syracuse, UConn and Rutgers.

“I need to read more to see what we’re doing,” Swofford said laughing. “That’s news to me.”

Orangebloods.com quoted a source Monday night that the ACC, trying to fend off a potential raid by the SEC – who might take Virginia Tech – would look to add Texas along with Syracuse, UConn and Rutgers for a 16-team league. Swofford spoke to reporters from CBSSports.com, SI.com and the New York Post at halftime of the Miami-Maryland game.

“I think we see a lot of things that are written, blogged and speculated about right now,” Swofford said. “We’re not a point at doing anything from a conference standpoint other than a lot of discussion, analysis and seeing what the landscape may hold moving forward. That’s way beyond any type of discussion we’ve had.”

The ACC’s current media rights deal is split evenly among all members. If, hypothetically the ACC added Texas, the Longhorns would bring their Longhorn Network and earn more than the other ACC members.

Swofford said equal revenue sharing among ACC members “has been a very strong principle of our league since the middle ‘80s.”

“I was AD in this league when we went to that fundamental principle and it’s been a very strong one ever since then,” Swofford said. “I think that it’s one that has a lot to do with the stability of conferences, just fundamentally.”

Mike, my family came through Ellis Island with less than nothing. They were hungry, and sports was a ticket out of hunger. Whole different set of motivation than those with everything from the start. Look at those second generation kids of Polish, Irish, and Italian and tell me they did not make their mark on the sports of their era.

Mike if I say Hells Kitchen the young folks will not get the history, and Little Italy is not the same 100 years ago. My grandfather made his stand with his fists, and my dad made his in a uniform. When you are hungry you fight with your body, and when you get past that need you fight with your mind.

“When I was a young fellow (he started fighting at 15 against bigger and older opponents) I was knocked down plenty. I wanted to stay down, but I couldn’t. I had to collect the two dollars for winning or go hungry. I had to get up. I was one of those hungry fighters. You could have hit me on the chin with a sledgehammer for five dollars. When you havn’t eaten for two days you’ll understand.” – Jack Dempsey

The Big 12 would not be in jeopardy now if UT and LHN would do (as they said they would when they were allowed to start the LHN) that you are suggesting the SEC would be able to require of them. Without all that other stuff the LHN cannot be worth what (some est near 1 billion over the life of the contract) that ESPN will be spending on it.

Biggest loser in these developments? Houston. UH was positioned to be the team to move up to either the BE or B12-2-1. Now the number of seats at the AQ table is contracting. The Cougars are perhaps the one one losing the most. Unless Baylor drops to the MWC/CUSA tier.

ISU really has the most to lose of any school IMHO. They benefit the most from simply having a historical connection to other, actually valuable schools. Wrestling prowess ain’t going to get you far (and didn’t help them keep their stellar coach in that sport to a big name school).

Really in any conference explosion, Iowa St literally brings nothing to the table. Their only hope is that the Big 12 remains intact in some form that would keep them around. Baylor at least can point to being in Texas, but Iowa St is in Iowa. And isn’t even the big school in Iowa.

For all the crap Iowa State gets on this board, their football attendance last year was higher than Baylor, Syracuse, Kansas, Connecticut, TCU, and the Big East average last year. That was without getting Texas, Iowa, or Oklahoma at home.

They’re the 11th or 12th best program in the Big 12, but they’re better than half the Big East (and way better than whatever CUSA/FCS programs the Big East was contemplating).

The Big East will probably end up as (Big East + Kansas + KSU + Missouri + Iowa State) – WVU/Missouri.

Iowa State would add literally nothing to the BIG. Kentucky would be a plus in Basketball. They have a good supportive fan base in state. Nice facilities. They bring a few more TV’s. But really the focus of these additions is Primarily Football. Academically they do not bring a lot.

Nothing is more beloved in Texas than Texas football. Entire towns travel to neighboring communities on Friday nights as rivals meet under the Friday night lights; Saturday mornings find families rushing out to pee wee football games and spending their afternoons with friends tailgating or watching some of the most historic and storied football rivalries in the nation; Sunday afternoons see families gathered in living rooms across the state to cheer on the Cowboys or the Texans.

Football in Texas is more than a passing interest, it is a part of the fabric of this great state.

•Will Texans stand by and watch hundred-year-old rivalries be cast aside as the state’s largest universities align themselves with other states across the country?
•Will Texans sit and watch as Texas’ flagship universities pledge their loyalties to other states?
•Will Texans stand by as our most promising student athletes are lured out of Texas by new rivals?
•Will Texans watch as our most precious resources—the great minds of the next generation—are exported to new conference institutions?

Texans must stand up and call the leadership of the University of Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech to clear-headed thinking about the state’s future. Texas’ flagship institutions of higher learning are the guardians of the state’s future—their loyalties must first be to Texas and to her citizens. Ask these leaders to take a stand for Texas and to stop this madness that will lead to the dissolution of the Big 12 and the end of an era for Texas.

Don’t blame the last guy to get on the lifeboat, blame the guy who sunk the ship. A pretty damn good case could be made that none of the schools belonged (Baylor included) in the Big 12. Baylor got lucky in that it was a good spot politically at that point. It was 17 years ago now. Where is the hate for Tech, did they belong? Where is the hate for TAMU, couldn’t they have saved the SWC? Where is the hate for UT, hell they blew up the SWC and now the Big 12? That’s right blame Baylor for the implosion of SWC and the subsequent aftermath, makes a whole lot of sense – obviously because Baylor has so much power over the situation.

Ann Richards is RIP.
Bob Bullock is RIP.
Baylor’s gone through like 5 presidents since then.

No one who was a part of that decision is still in office or in the administration. What was Baylor supposed to do? Hold out for TCU, SMU, and Rice? What actual leverage did it have other then being the last one on the life boat?

There are reports that TN is buying out of their return game at OR in 2013, which TN denies. Last year TN cancelled the series with UNC at the last minute and they avoided USC. UGA also cancelled a series with OR last year (2015-6). UF won’t leave the state. Is the SEC East scared?

UGA hired someone who used to work at Florida. Previously, UGA wanted exposure around the country and played home and home with schools like Colorado, Arizona St. and Oklahoma St. He adopted the Florida scheduling philosophy of scheduling guaranteed wins at home against the weakest possible opposition.

Happy to hear it. Outside of the kings (ND/UT), I really think Maryland is the ideal expansion target for the Big Ten. At the very least, the Big Ten needs to be talking to them in case a lot of parts start moving rapidly and the ACC begins to look unstable.

as someone who’s been living in the dc area the last 3 years, living both in maryland and virginia, I can say that getting just MD or VT alone will not capture the market. the states of maryland and virginia, even though they’re just separated by the potomac river are very different places. in terms of market shares between the 2 schools, I’d say in maryland it’s 70:30 MD:VT, in northern virginia, it’s something like 65:35 VT:MD. I’d say in the district, VT probably holds a slight advantage, however, surprisingly (or unsurprisingly to this board perhaps), I think that ohio state, penn state, and michigan have a larger market share in DC than VT and MD. in general, no one in this area cares about UVa’s sports programs (including UVa alumns). so, if you really want to capture the dc metro area, I think you need to get BOTH MD and VT. however, we know due to virginia politics, UVa is tied to VT at this point, which means you have to invite all 3 schools. obviously the endgame to B1G expansion is ND, but what if ND demands to have another school included with it such as Pitt or Boston College? that means someone’s being left out of this round of musical chairs….

Big Ten presidents will tell Notre Dame it joins the conference on Big Ten terms, not Notre Dame’s. This “we’re bigger than the game” mentality won’t work for either Texas or ND where the Big Ten is concerned.

Yeah, people seem to really be getting into the whole Texas keeps its LHN but joins the B1G without BTN profits. Sorry, no way.

First of all, the LHN excludes UT from participating in any other conference network, and it would seem difficult to even get Texas games on the BTN. So, exactly how is having Texas useful from a BTN standpoint when few if any games will ever even make it to that platform. The contract itself might be valued more highly for its ABC/ESPN portion, but the goal is expanding the BTN footprint and maintaining/strengthening conference stability, something adding Texas with special privileges fails to accomplish.

The B1G will bow to neither ND nor UT. They can continue to be an exceptionally stable conference without expanding at all, let alone with major power schools that may compromise that stability.

If the SEC picks off VTech, would the B10 take Maryland & UVa? I know UVa isn’t a great brand in football, but with UMB and the B10 brands, they should at least get the BTN on basic across the state of VA at some carriage rate, right? UMD and UVa are desirable in every way (academics, research, growing population, fertile football recruiting, large media markets, bball and other non-football sports) except football, and maybe the UnderArmour guy can do for the Terps what Boone Pickens and Phil Knight did for their alma maters. . . .

I’m always a bit skeptical of what Lenn Robbins, generally a Big East lackey, writes. Remember, in 2003 he reported the ACC would become a 14-member conference by also adding Syracuse and Notre Dame in addition to the teams that did join.

Also, Maryland wouldn’t be invited by itself; a 14th member would have to be admitted, too. I honestly don’t think the Big Ten feels all that threatened over Missouri going to the SEC, although this could be a situation where the western members want Mizzou, the eastern members want Maryland (from a Big Ten perspective, the most suitable eastern candidate), and this would be a way to satisfy both camps.

Also, I’m not sure that the western B10 schools want Mizzou. Mizzou’s not Nebraska, and the former Illinois president said that they had considered Mizzou in the past (around the time they brought in PSU & were thinking of a 12th school) but the academics weren’t up to par.

The Northwestern board actually has some really interesting posts about Texas.
One, convincingly explains how it would be in the B1G interest (financially) to take Texas and allow them to keep the LHN. Hey, are you going to argue with a Northwestern accounting wiz?
Another believes that Texas, knowing that ND will eventually be in the B1G, can’t possibly turn down what would be the ultimate conference. Many won’t buy these opinions, but they are interesting.

Want to see a long established conference implode? Allow Texas in with the LHN. I can see them wean them off over a 3 – 4 year period. Otherwise cold turkey would be the best way to put them in the proper frame of mind of being in a “conference” and not a rigged game.

I am confused how everyone keeps saying the ACC is untouchable. Maryland’s athletic department lost millions last year. The Big Ten offers more money for athletics, same or greater academic prestige, and more opportunities to access the biggest money maker of them all, research dollars. The SEC might not be able to break into the ACC but the Big Ten absolutely could. Maryland will not continue to lose money for the sake of all rivalries especially in this climate.

I’ll grant you that the Big Ten would offer Maryland a lot more money than the ACC could, in the long term. At the same time, it’s worth noting a few things:

1) Maryland is about to receive a huge spike in TV revenue from the ACC starting this year, the first year that the $155M/year TV contract goes into effect.
2) Maryland would not receive equal payouts from the Big Ten for several years, just as Nebraska must wait several years until the league’s next TV contract is negotiated and the payouts begin.

So while the ACC would not be able to offer as much money as the Big Ten, it still is offering some relief to the Maryland athletic department that it could not offer with the now-expired TV contract.

True Maryland will receive more money from the new ACC tv contract. However, the Big Ten’s new tv contract will be coming into play in 2016. That contract will dwarf every other contract out there especially if there is expansion. I think Nebraska is only getting a partial share of the BTN, not the regular television contract. I could be wrong about that though. If that’s the case, Maryland will be getting much more money from the new Big Ten regular contract in 2016 than the ACCs, so a partial share of the BTN will simply be gravy eventually. I think the Big Ten will have it’s choice of ACC schools not in North Carolina in 2015. That includes UVA and Maryland. The money difference will be too great.

* Football drives the college athletics bus, no matter how much the basketball people like to deny it.

* The Big Ten has a recognizable football brand; the ACC’s brand, though competitively not much different from the Big Ten aside from the very top, is negligible.

* It’d be a heckuva lot easier to fill up Byrd Stadium with the likes of Penn State, Ohio State and occasional visits from Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa and Michigan than it would be with Clemson, Wake Forest and Boston College.

Yes, you may not make as much money right away — but come 2041, where would you rather be? (And this doesn’t even take into account the academic and research opportunities that come with Big Ten membeship.)

“It’d be a heckuva lot easier to fill up Byrd Stadium with the likes of Penn State, Ohio State and occasional visits from Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa and Michigan than it would be with Clemson, Wake Forest and Boston College.”

This is a ridiculous comparison. Why not just say, “It’d be a heckuva lot easier to fill up Byrd Stadium with the likes of Penn State, Ohio State and occasional visits from Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa and Michigan than it would be with Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, and Kentucky?”

You chose two of the three least attractive ACC teams and compared them with the Big Ten’s most attractive, while ignoring interesting ACC home games against teams like FSU, Virginia Tech, Miami, and UNC and the uninteresting Big Ten opponents like Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Purdue.

Look, I’m not saying the Big Ten doesn’t have a better brand. It most certainly does. But you have to compare apples to apples. You’d have to ask how tickets would sell for:

You have to remember that a big reason for Maryland’s failure to sell tickets is not because the ACC is so uninteresting. It’s because Maryland football fans are fickle. If the team is mediocre for a few years, they’ll have trouble selling tickets, even if there’s a turnaround season like last year. You cannot blame the ACC for Maryland’s woes in ticket sales, nor can you expect the Big Ten to change that. Winning would be much harder to happen in the Big Ten.

I still think that if the Big Ten is going to raid the ACC, they would try to take UNC/Duke. While they do not move the meter football wise (and Duke is very bad), they are perhaps the only schools that move the meter from a basketball perspective (perhaps with the exception of Kentucky and Kansas). They also bring you more coverage in the NYC market than Syracuse or Rutgers would (Duke is the number one watched school in the NYC media market). You would also go a long way towards DC and the Mid Atlantic. If you simultaneously added MD or UV, you would completely lock down DC. In addition the NC schools are a better academic fit and certainly add significantly to the national brand. It would also make the Big Ten the preeminent basketball conference. While I know that this is all about football, basketball will serve the purpose of getting the BTN on TV sets in the Northeast, more so than any college football team not named Notre Dame would. Not every football team can be a perennial winner and the basketball of these two schools would make up for the lack of football. Add this to the fact that I think Duke and UNC would listen to the Big 10, because they are still upset at the football expansion from several years ago, which did not pan out like everyone expected.

All this being said, I do not think this will happen, I think the ACC is an extremely stable conference, but that changes if the SEC poaches Clemson or VT or FSU.
I just think that if Delaney is going to raid the ACC, then he will go for UNC/Duke, who as a combo I would consider a king, instead of settling for MD or UVA.

The problem is that Fortress Carolina is hard to break and would be the last to fall in the ACC. I was an early proponent of taking the ACC core four, but the problem is that UNC needs to play UVa, Duke, & NCSU every year in football, they need to play Duke twice a year in bball, and they share the same administration with NCSU, so they’re not going anywhere unless the SEC graciously takes NCSU.

Zeek, taking Mizzou in order to prevent the SEC from taking them would be, IMHO, a godawful decision. Mizzou wasn’t a threat when they were in the B12. How would they enhance the SEC or be a threat when they’re jostling with either the MS schools or UK/Vandy to stay out of the cellar?

Lots of quotes that show the hubris coming out of Austin, but here is a telling tale of what Texas may have to do to survive:

“Of course, that would require compromise — never a Texas strong suit, dating to Southwest Conference days. But these are dire times and the Longhorns may be out of better options if they don’t want to wind up as an independent. And from all indications, they do not.”

I know that’s the standard line, but I doubt Texas proposed changing the Big 12 revenue sharing from 50% equal, 50% based on appearances to 3/4 equal, but that is what was approved after CU and UNL left the league. That’s a compromise. It was probably required because with the loss of those two teams, the Big 12 is a 5/5 split on haves and have-nots (at least this week its still 5/5) , instead of 7 haves and 5 have-nots. What it means if the Big 12 survives is the spread from top to bottom, based on a $17 million average, would be $15.5 to $18.5 million instead of $14 to 20 million.

I wonder if the line at the end that says “At that point (2016), if the Pac-12 and the SEC have grown to 16 teams, then Notre Dame will join the Big Ten.” is based on a source, or is just speculation on the writer’s part.

I wonder if OU/OSU will get the votes if it is only an expansion to 14. Stanford is often very reluctant. WSU, UA, ASU, CU are likely separated from the CA schools and may not like that without TX exposure to compensate. If they just move Utah into the North, then the 4 NW schools may be unhappy since they will rarely see USC or UCLA. If the CEOs really aren’t enthused about going beyond 12, there could be quite a few no votes for going to 14.

Of course, I’m assuming the Presidents will think about the logistical things. They may just say Oklahoma is ok, now let the ADs deal with the consequences. That’s basically what happened in the WAC. The ADs voted to go from 10 to 12 with just TCU and UNLV. It got inflated to 16 and they never figured out how to do the divisions.

The PAC-10 (and presumably still the PAC-12) requires unanimous consent for expansion. However, last year the conference granted Scott unilateral authority to pursue expansion (with a few exceptions like BYU) since he knew he would need to make package deals that some schools (specifically Cal and Stanford) wouldn’t sign off on if they had to be voted on. I’m not sure if Scott still has that power.

“2. New Members.
Membership shall be limited to institutions of higher education holding Division I membership in the NCAA.
Applicants shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner.
New members may only be admitted to the Conference by three-fourths vote of the entire CEO Group. (6/10)”

Wilner article states why SEC would want to expand…jealousy of Pac 12 TV deal and greed. Think anyone would rise above the money and just say no, let’s maintain the staus quo? Not so far. aTm would not be so bold without a wink and a nod from SEC, they’re not stupid. So, here we go.
Texas will NOT go to PAC 12 if OU/OSU leaves becuase of the “tech problem” and the LHN. Will NOT go indy because of scheduling of sports besides football. I see Texas keeping the Big 12 together. Mizzou will not go to SEC, nor will the BiG feel a need to expand just yet. I see SEC adding aTm and someone else..who cares. Big 12 will add BYU, Houston, SMU and Rice. BYU wants exposure, doesn’t care about money and needs a conference to do that. So in the end, the Baptists, the Methodists and the Mormons will all duke it out in football Armageddon. (HA)

Tough to determine whether the MWC goes after Baylor or Utah State. I think they’d want Utah State to plug the hole in their Utah map, but if you base these things somewhat off stadium size (because I’m not really sure either moves the dial), Baylor might make more sense. I’ll stick with Utah State though, just because the MWC almost added them the last time around.

Right now, I’ve got no best guess of what will happen except that A&M will almost certainly go to the SEC. And if OU leaves and the Big 12 holds together, it will be because the Big 12 and BE football schools basically merge into one conference-The Big 12-2-1-2 + UL,UC,Pitt,WVU,RU and possibly SU and UConn. BYU is someone who seems likely to be left on the outside in the OU to Pac scenarios.

Stays this way through 2014/2015 and the next round of TV contracts where B10, ACC and SEC will go to 16 picking off the infant B12 w/BE schools. Delay gives the conferences at 12 a chance to evaluate the value of the 16 team model by watching the P16.

When is the SEC invite to A&M to be expected? Any chance that they don’t invite A&M? Would certainly not look good for the Aggies. Could we expect a long delay as they work out a 14th team so they can make a joint invite? Or do we expect them to invite A&M and then a 14th team later on? Seems like that is the first domino that needs to fall in this round of realignment, and I simply want the process to start.

It should happen in the next week. A&M’s bye week this weekend makes this the perfect time to announce it if it’s going to happen.

SEC will announce A&M by Sept. 15 and then think about #14 after the season in Jan. The best two guesses right now are Missouri or WVU.

If the SEC doesn’t think either is adequate, they’ll wait for a year or two at 13. Not sure whether they’ll be able to get the ACC team they have their eye on (Va Tech or FSU); I think those teams are really happy where they are.

Quote from CSU’s AD: “I’m sure every school has kind of assessed their situation and is trying to decide where they fit in or what the strengths and weaknesses are of our various programs,” Kowalczyk said. “I think we’ve been doing that at CSU anyway, needless to say.”

um…now exactly who would be calling Col. State? PAC?…no…um Big 12…hey it just died…B1G? lmao..yeah….no….Mtn West…HEY they already are in the Mtn West.

Another question for more knowledgable minds on this board. If the B10’s next contract is set for 2016, will they want to expand by then to maximize that amount, or wait and see how much that expansion genearates before evaluating whether an expansion is worth it, or to show potential big targets that the $$ is just too rich in the B10 to avoid.

Delany/Silverman and company are already working through those issues.

The negotiations for the 2016 contract will occur in 2014/2015. Nebraska gets a full share in 2017 (presumably somewhat as buy in on the BTN and because the TV contract doesn’t have Nebraska’s value in it yet, so everyone would have to take a paycut to get them a full share).

Most likely, the Big Ten will entertain expansion in the 2014/2015 years because that’s also when ND’s NBC contract comes up and so they will presumably be surveying the landscape.

But they already know what the numbers are going to look like. Say they get an offer for $3 billion over 10 years. Maybe that becomes $3.5-3.7 billion over 10 years if the Big Ten adds the right two teams. There are plenty of TV people in the Big Ten to work over those numbers, and I’m sure they crunch over them every year.

The Big Ten has accountants, business and marketing leaders (and legends) that would give them VERY strong numbers. For every scenario they could come up with, they would have a very good ballpark number on what that means overall / per school / before 2016 / and after 2016. They know how much each live football, basketball, AND hockey game earn and have full projections on each (exactly the reason for the BT Hockey conference).

Sitting here on the side, I can see that the BIG and the PAC earn more money in total and per team with additions (as long as they are reasonable). They have a magical number that they believe will earn the most for the right amount of schools, the question is is that number 12, 14, 16, 18, 24???? They can be choosy and they want the RIGHT schools to join to maximize profit.

From a tv perspective, they would make more money with Western Michigan and Buffalo as additions, but way more money with Notre Dame and Boston College (or whomever). It’s about maximizing the revenue potential.

So where does this leave the Big Ten. Lets say Texas, OU, OSU & Texas Tech go to the PAC 16. And the SEC takes Texas AM, Mizzou to make 14. And ND stays independent. How does the Big Ten react? In my opinion the “big fish” are off the board, and if the Big Ten is to keep up with the other conferences (from expansion Point of View), who is there to go after that is considered a Big Fish? This is very reactive and not proactive by the Big Ten.

The only schools that we know are guaranteed to make expansion worth it at this point in time are ND, Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M. The Big Ten’s contracts don’t get renegotiated for another 3-4 years, so unless a king or quasi-king is on the table, the Big Ten isn’t moving.

Also, the Big Ten is unlikely to want the addons of TTech or OSU, and A&M clearly only wants the SEC.

The Big Ten doesn’t really need to expand if it eventually expects to be able to add Notre Dame at some point in the future. 14 is probably the ideal number for the Big Ten.

Yes – But can anyone explain to me, how the wait and see (reactive) approach is beneficial to the Big Ten. It is inevitable that there will be 4 super conferences with 16 teams each. It is not inevitable that ND will want to join any conference. the other conferences are discussing expansion with the schools mentioned above, and if it turns out that they do expand with those schools, this leaves the Big Ten in a bad position because they did not join in and now have to react with what is left over. I understand the point of “not expand unless it is worth it right now”, but it is evident that other conferences are expanding, and to keep up, the Big Ten will need to expand, so given that why not join in now?

While I see what you’re saying, the 4×16 scenario is hardly inevitable.

All of this hinges on whether Texas wants to go to the Pac-16. Even then, there’s no guarantee that the SEC will go to 16 without ACC teams that might not be poachable. The ACC isn’t a lock to go to 16 either.

Most likely we end up with several different conference models; the 16, the 14, and the 12. And it’s more than likely that we end up with 5 major conferences in those models, although the ACC and Big East are likely to be the stragglers.

If you don’t add strong brands, then the amount of games between strong brands is diminished.

If you add Missouri and Rutgers for example, the number of games between Nebraska and Ohio State or Michigan and Penn State will decrease over a decade. While Nebraska is getting the hardest schedule possible in their first years, you don’t want to dilute the conference and make it less likely that the schools that move the dial play each other less…

You’re right, there is a very small window and I don’t doubt for a minute that Delany (despite his public proclamations) is working it for all he’s worth. I just fear that he isn’t being allowed to play his best hand.

Utah’s head coach Kyle Willingham must be a fool then because he was on the college sports station on Siriux XM doing an interview with Jack Arute and Mike Leach. He was asked about reallignment and he plainly stated he thought there’d be four 16-team super conferences and that the timetable for it to be set up is in 2-3 years.

4 x 16 is not inevitable, because there are already more than 64 BCS members and you’re not kicking anyone out. More than likely, the Pac, SEC and Big Ten will end up with 16 members each, and the ACC and Big 12 will wind up in reconstituted form with fewer members than the top-tier conferences. The Big East will be out of the football business, which is how the BCS wants it, because they don’t want any basketball members messing up things should they ultimately break off from the NCAA.

I don’t see any significant political implications if Baylor, ISU or WF get left out if their conference implodes. Being an AQ school isn’t a right for them, they have to earn their keep. It might be different if they were kicked out (private schools don’t get much political sympathy), but if there are numbers to justify replacing them then so be it.

I’m talking about the anti-BCS politics. Utah and Texas politicians were leading the fight. Utah and TCU are now in BCS conferences. And its been a really bad year for college sports with Cam Newton, Ohio St. & Jim Tressel, Miami, and the agent deal involving UNC and just about half the schools in the south. Plus there’s been all the over-signing, medical scholarships & grey shirting abuses by the SEC schools.

If KU, KSU, MU, ISU and Baylor get fully or partly left behind, that’s a lot of unhappy politicians. I’m not saying it will stop realignment. But the university presidents in the Pac and SEC have to think about that.

You keep bringing this up, but I don’t see any reason why all current schools have to stay BCS. The fact is, if the Big XII breaks ISU (for example) will have no one to protect them. Iowa will never leave the Big 10 nor will it ever be in a position where it holds the deciding vote for expansion so the local pols won’t have any leverage and there is no way anything happens at the federal level (you are not going to get 60 Senators to do anything about the BCS).

Now it is certainly possible that all current AQ schools will keep their status, but it is by no means guaranteed.

1. It is not inevitable that there will be 4×16 conferences.
2. The B10 won’t expand just because others do.
3. You’re assuming the B10 isn’t talking to people.
4. The B10 can’t force people to want to join (TAMU, ND).
5. The B10 seems unlikely to totally sacrifice its principles just to expand, despite the desires of many fans. That means TT and OkSU aren’t welcome, which probably prevents OU and UT from coming.

I would really emphasize #2. I think the Big Ten is in a really great position right now. Super conferences just seem inherently unstable. You may as well be two separate conferences united by a title game. The B1G is currently geographically and culturally unified, with a great product on the field and strong television contracts (and that’s without the renegotiated contracts in 2016).

I really don’t think Delaney has a single reason to expand right now, and I don’t think he should do it even if it means getting Texas and ND. That’s too many “kings” in one conference, and two very large egos that aren’t necessarily interested in sharing.

As a quick follow-up, I’m a Michigan fan and alum. I really don’t see how adding UT and/or ND offers me or Michigan any real benefit. Great, our contracts go through the roof, but Michigan is already in the black and has a very large endowment. Most Big Ten schools really don’t need the boost, especially when we are already counting on a significant one in 2016.

I frankly don’t want to have to deal with Texas and Notre Dame in order to win the Big Ten title in the future. Nebraska was a cultural and geographic fit and gave us the title game many have wanted. I am perfectly happy to stay as we are.

2. Even if they were, of the team you are talking about only Texas and Texas A&M are teams that IMHO the Big Ten would care about missing out on. I don’t really think they would want Oklahoma all that much given the academics and since they already took Nebraska as a stretch (and Oklahoma is worse).

I’m sure that the Big Ten has spoken to – or is currently speaking to – both the Aggies and Longhorns. If they do not come the Big Ten’s way, I don’t know what more the conference could do to be “proactive”. I wouldn’t advocate taking the likes of Mizzou or Kansas St just for the sake of being proactive. If the Big Ten can’t get Texas or A&M, they’d be better off looking East for teams than at the Big 12.

I strongly believe that North Carolina & Duke can be added to that list. UNC adds a football program that rakes in 60,000 fans for home games & UNC/Duke add a ton of TV brand value for basketball.

Basketball adds a huge amount of additional inventory in a 16 school Big Ten (more inventory equals more viewers & more advertising and that equals $$$), and it would more or less guarantee that ESPN would have to pay the Big Ten whatever it wanted for its TV contract.

The Big Ten could arguably be the strongest basketball conference in the country with the additions Duke/UNC – ESPiN loves to think it is the world wide leader in college basketball. The thing that would make the Big Ten’s contract more appealing to ESPN than the SEC/PAC 12 conference in this scenario is that the Big Ten could draw easily the best basketball ratings of any other conference. So instead of paying a HUGE contract for ratings from September-November, ESPN could pay a larger contract and get inventory from September-March – much better investment IMO.

Duke/UNC are one of the very few basketball schools who draw basketball ratings comparable to average football ratings….that is something that people often overlook with the mind set that “football is the only thing that matters in realignment” – that isn’t exactly true.

Football is a big piece, but it isn’t the only piece. TV brand, academics, & potential TV subscribers are all extraordinarily important – and UNC/Duke are out of the park homers in all three of those criteria. If the Big Ten could pull them (and that is a big if in this scenario), it would clearly be the best move for the conference.

Add ND/Duke/UNC/UVA (my reason for thinking UVA is because they are UNC’s oldest football rival, which will be a key part of luring them to the Big Ten – and UVA’s academics & state population speak for themselves as well), and the Big Ten would have the following TV brands in the Big Ten:

Bigger 10 puts a great football product on the field? Are you kidding me?? Of the 12 games scheduled by most Bigger 10 teams, usually no more than 6 are competitive and worth watching. Moreover, the Bigger Ten’s record in the Rose Bowl and NC games speak for themselves, not to mention its other bowl game appearances v. SEC and Pac-12. Great product indeed.

This is what I have been saying. Adding those four schools (ND/UNC/Duke/UVA) is a slam dunk for academics, national brand and basketball. More importantly you go a very long way to locking up the NYC market (As well as DC). If there is any weakness in the ACC over the next few months, I think the ACC core four bolt to the big 10.

I am a big fan of the Pod system….try making those pods work with four eastern schools….much more difficult to get good pods than adding ND + 3 eastern schools. For instance:

Great Plains

Iowa
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Minnesota

Great Lakes

Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Illinois

Central

Notre Dame
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana

Colonial

Penn State
North Carolina
Duke
Virginia

Those are pretty well balanced (with at least one “king” in each division) and with the rotation of sister divisions, it would even out the slight imbalance in the Great Plains & Great Lakes division – try putting together four pods with four eastern schools and see where you get – its tough to make those pods competitively balanced while respecting long term rivalries and geography.

Those are pretty well balanced (with at least one “king” in each division) and with the rotation of sister divisions, it would even out the slight imbalance in the Great Plains & Great Lakes division – try putting together four pods with four eastern schools and see where you get – its tough to make those pods competitively balanced while respecting long term rivalries and geography.

I don’t see the B10 going with pure geography like this. The pods are way too imbalanced.

Then the Big Ten does nothing and is happy with it. There is no need for a conference to “do something” just because other conferences do. The Big Ten will expand beyond 12 teams when it feels that those additions benefit the conference and the current teams.

Last summer, ESPN worked behind the scenes to prevent major consolidation of the conferences.

Since then, they worked with UT to create the LHN which, amongst other things accomplished the following:

1. Set conference consolidation in motion again.
2. Gave ESPN access to the biggest bargaining chip in Expansionpalooza.

ESPN has contracts with each of the major players here. I’m not talking about just the Conferences either, they have contracts with DirecTV, Comcast, and all the other players in the TV ecosystem. ESPN has the most levers here to influence the outcome and the biggest lesson learned from last summer’s sequence of events is that ESPN is willing to renegotiate contracts to influence outcomes.

Nobody. Which is why I still contend Oklahoma (even if it means bringing Oklahoma state) is the gateway to Texas and Notre Dame. If you can add Texas, Notre Dame and Oklahoma at the cost of Oklahoma St. to round out your sixteen, you do it. Somehow Stanford and Cal Berkeley can bite the bullet on Oklahoma State but the B1G can’t? Yes, I know some of you love the Midwest cocoon and others think the mid-Atlantic is the best option, but since I don’t believe the ACC is going to crack and I want the B1G to remain relevant for the next century and beyond, this seems like a best option for expanding our horizons.

I suspect they would do that if given the opportunity, but I doubt that opportunity exists in such a simple form. There is also a very real risk of adding 3 kings at one time without taking the time to integrate the schools. In this regard, I think the B10’s slow but methodical expansion approach is a real winner. There is a very real risk that a 16 team super conference would not be stable over the long run, and could allow for 8-10 teams to break off. While this probably isn’t a concern to Kings, Princes, schools in the same state as Kings (e.g., MSU), it is probably a concern to the smaller schools (e.g., Purdue) and schools in small states (e.g, Iowa). UT and ND don’t exactly have an “all for one attitude.” So while you immediately would make the conference better by adding them, you do risk long-term statbility. I have no doubt that the B10 would add UT/ND as a 13 and 14 team if given the opportunity. But again, you cannot lose your conference sole simply for the sake of expansion. A slower expansion one or two teams at a time allows you to retain your conference identity. To add those four schools at one time is tantatmount to a merger with the B12 powerhouses, plus ND. Yes it creates a power conference, but it is hardly recognized as the B10 at that point. Not a reason not to do it, but something that should be considered.

I would agree if I thought Oklahoma or even Texas were a cultural mis-match. I, personally, feel that the Big12 schools (missouri, kansas, Oklahoma) are a much better cultural fit than the eastern seaboard schools. And they love football. Texas, where I used to live, is not a particularly good cultural fit, but I as someone who has also lived in California, it is a far better fit for them than the West Coast.

Well the case against your scenario is that ND is only really going to join if it feels that access to the BCS, especially the NC, is problematic. It wouldn’t be problematic if OU/OSU come to the Big Ten.

The Pac-12 would remain the same, and the SEC would likely stay at 14 along with the Big Ten at 14.

Texas is not going to remain independent. They are going to have to land somewhere and that somewhere is going to be with Oklahoma, Nebraska and most assuredly Notre Dame. If Texas joined the Big Ten, Notre Dame is going to join. And if the Big Ten adds Oklahoma and Texas the SEC is not going to stop at 14. We just disagree.

I see a little fuzzy logic here…how can Texas land in the same place as Oklahoma and Nebraska when those two aren’t going to end up in the same place? Nebraska is in the Big Ten; Oklahoma is either staying in the Big 12-2-1 or joining the Pac-12/16. How can Texas go to both?

If we get to the point Notre Dame has to land somewhere, I’m not sure I’m going to be a college football fan anymore. If they want independence, they should be able to keep up.

Side Note: Long run, I think they are more valuable as an independent than they’ll ever be in a conference. Part of what makes people love and hate them is their independence status. Put them in a conference and they lose a big part of what makes people care so much.

I have no idea who you were replying to, so your comment is a bit of a non sequitur. Nonetheless, what you fail to understand is that the P12 is only an athletic conference while the B10 is an athletic and academic conference. The P12 still likes to keep high academic standards for new members, but they already have WSU, OrSU and ASU so it’s a bit hypocritical.

How about this scenario: the SEC gets cold feet about destroying the Big 12, and that combined with no #14 that gets them excited provokes them to pull back the welcome mat for A&M. Having burnt its bridges with the Big12 and nowhere to go, little brother is rescued by big brother and they ride off together to the B1G? Sort of forces the Texas politicians to chose between taking care of A&M and TTech. Not saying that I think this will happen. What I am saying is that I don’t believe that Delany is happy at 12 when OU, Texas, and A&M are in play. We were pretty responsive and flexible when Nebraska was available, and I can see that Nebraska is a little better geographic fit, not as much academic (at least as UT and A&M), and perhaps not as demographic and certainly the national brands of UT and Oklahoma are comparable to Nebraska.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Colorado would probably be the only school unhappy with the setup, along with maybe Arizona and Utah.

The original Pac-8 would be restored, so you know those 8 will be happy. The Arizona schools lose out on South California but gain Texas instead; ditto Utah. Although Arizona might feel slightly unhappy at being shoved aside for the original Pac-8, they’re not going to complain about the flood of money, the same goes for Utah.

Competitively, however, Texas and OU will dominate that group over time, whereas right now they mainly just have to go through USC.

I’d say CO, AZ and ASU would all be unhappy. AZ and ASU have been members for over 30 years and I doubt they want to be shunted aside with the B12 newbies. CO joined specifically to get away from TX and into CA, and this would undo it. Utah is just happy to be AQ, but would prefer more CA access than TX access I’m guessing.

While it might not be quite as nice for Colo and the Az’s as the current setup is, it is the arrangement that they were all on board for last year. I doubt Utah has come down from the high of being in an AQ conference, and won’t mind where in one of those they are.

SIAP: But where’s was this CU outrage when PAC was taking them 1st so that they didn’t lose their spot to Baylor? They took their PAC spot knowing full well a PAC16 may very well happen w/ the Big 12 South schools. Now a year later they’re pissed?

This is what I was pointing out above. If its a Pac 14, there are a lot of people who would not be happy with who they WEREN’T playing, not a concern about who they were adding.

It’s not hard to imagine 4 no votes to a 14 team Pac. A 16 team with both OU and UT would probably lucrative enough to overcome most of those objections, but UA,ASU,CU might still not be happy and Stanford definitely considers more than just $.

The difference with the new arrangement is Oklahoma (and possibly Texas) have to play by the rules that have already been set up instead of making up their own rules and imposing them on Kansas State and Iowa State.

We all know that Boulder’s pseudo hippie culture and academic pipe dreams place them with Cal and Stanford, but reality is closer to a western Kansas.

Any NCAA bylaws people out there…
Can you do traditional East/West divisions for basketball & other sports, and have a different alignment (zipper) for football?
I seem to remember that last yr wilner’s blog a lot of folks that liked the zipper idea.

Would work for 14/16 or sub UT/TT if UT decided to drop LHN and go w/ OU/oSu.

A zipper alignment would work much better for the PAC-1X than it would for any other conference since the PAC schools are naturally arranged in pairs (WA, OR, NoCal, SoCal, AZ, Mountain and (if they join) OK and TX or Midwest) instead of geographic regions. The only real problem would be finding a way for all the California schools to play each other (even though the only NoCal/SoCal schools that HAVE to play are Cal and UCLA since they are part of the same school system), but they currently use a geographic alignment and have pledged to let the Cali four have an annual round robin.

That said, if the PAC goes to 16 I think they would be better off going standard East/West (if they can get the AZ schools to sign off) so the PAC-8 and Big XII schools can all play each other.

Assuming the LHN would be somehow folded into the B10 network, who here supports taking Texas Tech if it means we get Texas?

Texas Tech is well below B10 standards, but like it or not Texas is THE preeminent school from a poachable conference, perhaps from ANY conference.

If A&M and Missouri to the SEC and OK and OK State to the Pac-12 is on, the balls are in motion. Who’s left? The East Coast nobodies? I think it’s worth betting on Tech to raise their academic profile, we need to look at this 20-30 years out.

I don’t get this fascination with Texas. I know financially they are the “crown jewel”, and academically they are a peer, but if you’re actually asking me the Penn State fan whether I want TTech and Texas in the Big Ten, the answer is a resounding No.

I’ve got nothing against those schools, but I’m kind of happy with the way the conference alignment turned out with just adding Nebraska, and I’m thrilled they are the “rivalry” game from the opposite division.

It might be neat to see Texas playing some of the Big Ten schools, but I don’t want to lose the protected game with Nebraska or Ohio State.

Thanks for the question though. It forced me to think about what I actually want out of the Big Ten instead of thinking just about “how best can we get to 16”. Here’s hoping our conference stays pat for another 20 years or so.

If Texas must take Texas Tech, their only option (other than staying in the Big 12 husk) is the Pac-16:

— The B1G will never grant membership to a third-tier academic school and probably wouldn’t have accepted Oklahoma even without OSU. Texas is the only one of the UT/OU/OSU/TT four-pack that the Big Ten considers even acceptable. Of course it is tremendously desirable as well, but that doesn’t mean the others are borderline. They’re automatic no’s.

— The ACC has a very good academic roster, roughly the same strength as the B1G. TT simply doesn’t belong and would be dilutive financially and academically. The cultural fit is zero. I haven’t seen anything that’s an absolute ban like with the B1G, but the disconnect is jarring. The only school remotely comparable to TT in the ACC is NC St and that’s not much. Everyone else is considered good-to-elite academically and most of those schools are every bit as proud and rich as Texas.

— Texas has always expressed negative interest in the SEC and the SEC has negative interest & need for Texas Tech. A third Texas school would be nothing but financial dilution and no SEC school is going to be convinced that they need to worship at the alter of UT to survive and so should assume Texas Tech for zero gain. A&M is more than they need because of their national brand & CBS; they get on TV in Texas just fine.

— The Big East isn’t a destination conference. It’s pretty much two conference at this point already, with a mix of middling institutions, institutions with no better home, football schools that make little geographic sense and basketball schools that can’t/don’t play D-I football but who hold too much financial sway because of residuals payouts to discard.

Texas either has to dump/transform the LHN (the Pac-1X will never accept it as is) or they need to sacrifice Texas Tech. To go to the B1G, they would need to dump both the LHN and Tech.

I wouldn’t be so sure that Oklahoma itself is a no. I think Delany could get Oklahoma and Missouri through if he wanted.

But I agree that that’s all a moot point because OSU is an automatic no along with Texas Tech. There’s not going to be any desire on the part of Texas and OU to join a conference without some regional allies (like OSU/TTech). That ship already sailed.

Oklahoma isn’t particularly distinguishable academically from Nebraska at this point. It just depends on whether Nebraska is the new minimum standards, or if it was a one-time exception that the COPC wouldn’t do again.

There was a lot of wailing & gnashing of teeth over admitting Nebraska. Wisconsin & Michigan (the two top public academic institutions in BIG) subsequently voted to strip Nebraska of AAU status. These guys mean business.

Oklahoma would be an incredibly difficult sell academically & culturally. It looks like a no-brainer in football but football doesn’t necessarily run the Big Ten.

UofM (and Bo) also did all they could to stop Penn State from joining. In hindsight, I have to believe they would acknowledge their (short sighted) error in judgement. The administrations are also aware that economic austerity means less research money in the near future and perhaps long term. They’re smart enough to recognize that the BTN is their new golden goose. If Delany can make the financial case to them, and the school isn’t a travesty, I believe they would begrudgingly agree. Oklahoma State? Now that would make M go Blue.

The difference being Nebraska spends more on research than Oklahoma by about $100 million and that’s not including the University of Nebraska Medical Center (separate campus).

Undergraduate rankings / admission criteria are very similar, it is the graduate research dollars and programs that are different. It is my opinion that too many people are looking at undergrad rankings and not enough time at federal grants and graduate research dollars.

OU and NU are essentially equal in academic prestige, OU also has an off campus med center in OKC that doesn’t count towards their AAU status as well. No doubt plenty of research is being done at NU on a daily basis, unfortunately a large amount is agrarian/farming/ranching which doesn’t add to academic prestige.

OU and NU are not of equal academic prestige. Nebraska’s research budget is more than 260% of Oklahoma’s and there isn’t any bias against agricultural research in the Midwest. While OU and NU have similar undergrad profiles, their research departments (which is what the Big 10 really cares about when evaluating the academics of schools not located in South Bend, IN) are not even comparable.

Plus Nebraska is actually geographically closer to the core of the Big Ten. I think if Nebraska were located where Oklahoma is, I’m not so sure they would have been invited to join last year.

I’m also of the mind that the Big Ten was willing to relax their standards somewhat for Nebraska, but will be loath to do so more additions. They won’t want to weaken the academic brand any further, That’s why I think Mizzou has no chance to join unless they are absolutely needed for some other addition.

I really don’t see any western expansion for the Big Ten that doesn’t involve Texas or A&M. Without them, it’ll be ND and Big East/ACC teams.

Frank, you say that “Larry Scott knows, just like Jim Delany and Mike Slive, that equal revenue sharing is a primary tenet of strong conference unity,” however, the SEC grants its tier 3 rights to its members. So, UF has a $10 million/year deal for one fb game. Not as good as Texas, but way more than anybody else in the SEC.

UF doesn’t make $10M “for one fb game.” They make that much on a wide variety of athletic events, coaches shows, and other programming. OSU makes $11M. Iowa makes $6M. All the big names make millions on third tier rights, not just the SEC. It is hard to make an exact apples to apples comparison to see just how much that FB game brings in.

my post was a response to JJ’s original post. I figured jj was joking, so I tried to look at posters and how they fit. Hop was the source for all things Texas on here in the beginning, so Chip Brown seemed to fit as best as anybody. Not intended it as an insult.

Money quote! I mean it, read this… think what this means. ESPiN is not really all that interested in the survival of the BXII.

Someone asked above: What does ESPiN want? The answer is inventory and money (via market share and viewership).

The money quote:

“So why would ESPN make what amounts to a $1 billion commitment to a dedicated UT network when the rights to its marquee programming – Texas football – are so thoroughly restricted by the existing Big 12 TV contracts for at least the next six years?

It wouldn’t, unless it was betting that the broadcast rights for UT football games aren’t going to be encumbered by the Big 12 for much longer. It’s that simple.”

Once BXII implodes, LHN gets the inventory of TX games.

ESPiN is about acquiring inventory in opposition to Fox, B10 Network, NBC, et. al. Now have the whole of SEC, then TX thru the LHN, now A&M through SEC invite.

So, ESPiN is trying to stop OK and OKST to PAC-12 (Fox) and Mizzu to B1G (Fox). ACC is okay for now, since SEC is the main nurturer.

There’s a major problem with that theory: namely the latest Pac-12 deal signed was a joint venture by ESPN/Fox that splits the Tier 1 & Tier 2 rights. So ESPN has no reason to deny Texas to the Pac-12 as ESPN can still take a couple games and put it on the Network. The issue is whether or not Texas can keep revenue to itself from the network, and that’s where the Pac-12 might balk.

The ACC thing was nothing more than trying to throw the public off the trail. It has little to do with ESPN.

Mike, I think so. As such, the only game guaranteed to be on the LHN this year is Rice. Contractually, it only calls for one football game and ideally a second. That tells me that if ESPN can fill the network with two tier-2 football games and a handful of basketball games, they could recoup whatever monies they hope to earn provided it’s carried by most of the state of Texas.

If they can receive 75% of the state being a subscriber (there are 8 million TV households in Texas) at 25 cents per subscriber per month, the network would earn $18 million, which would be enough to more than pay what they’re obligated to pay Texas ($12 mil). Assuming even 30% in advertising receipts, they’re clearing $23 million total. That would pay Texas, cover operating costs and still net a profit.

Remember: all this is without regard for whether the network ends up on DirecTV and Dish. There would be some additional subscribers through sports tiers if it lands there.

Bottom line is that the network can be profitable by having some Tier 2/3 rights, even on a limited basis. Obviously though they need at least some live inventory for football and basketball to make it work.

As the article points out, ESPN has $1B investment over the next 20 years in the LHN, but it has a much bigger investment overall in college athletics. In that way, think of this $1B investment in the LHN as an ante to give it some control in the much larger game that is to be played out.

Figured I’d post those tweets of what Stoops said. Obviously, he’s not controlling anything with respect to expansion, but I’d be surprised if he wasn’t at least kept in the know by Boren and Castiglione.

Here’s Tramel’s article on it. Makes it seem more as if OU is playing poker through Stoops, but regardless, the idea of a Pac-16 without Texas and Oklahoma having to blow up its non-conference contracts in order to schedule Texas is being contemplated (as well as the possibility of a Pac-16 without Texas). Is it likely? Probably not; I still think the endgame is Texas joining the Pac-16. The problem is, they want some kind of negotiated deal rather than just dropping the LHN and getting the same deal as everyone else.

Almost all college football fans want to see rivalries continued. But they do end. OU-Nebraska. Why would OU-Texas be different? Just because it is played at a neautral field. There is no reason why both OU-Texas and A&M -Texas couldn’t continue wherever UT ends up. Sure OU and A&M have a say. Things change, but they do not have to be inevitable. UT needs the rivalries as well. Part of what makes a program storied is the rivalries it has. When you lose those, you potentially lose a lot of the allure of your program. Does anyone really think that if ND joined the B10, they would give up the USC or Navy rivalries?

UT/OU is for bragging rights between the two top dogs in Texas recruiting. I guess as long as OU thinks they can recruit Texas, they can threaten to dump the UT game, but its seem like a bit of a gamble to potentially play no Texas teams going forward.

I don’t see any sentiment for dropping OU. The schools will figure out how to make that happen even if it means a very tough ooc for one or both schools. Both schools rely on donations that give you access to those tickets.

On the other hand, with regard to A&M, the majority sentiment on the Texas boards was best expressed by the MOB at halftime of the Rice game, using a line from A&M’s fight song: Texas A&M is saying ‘Good-bye to Texas University.’ And they are FINALLY leaving!

If Aggies get SEC invitation today, they will accept as early as tomorrow
If another league expands, the Pac-12 will be more likely to move as well
We don’t know if Mike Slive wants to go to 16, but we know that he could

The KU Chancellor confirmed that the two aren’t tied to the hip. If KU gets a Pac-1X invite, the BoR would be foolish to turn down that offer. It isn’t realistic to expect both KU & KSU get invites to a major conference. OSU and TTU can realistically ride coat tails, though.

Whether or not its legal isn’t the question. The stuff about “tied together as a matter of law” is always baloney no matter which state it is. As a practical and political matter, a public university that answers to the legislature abandoning Little Brother public university isn’t going to fly.

It’s not impossible if the Big 12 completely collapses, but any sort of instigating move of Oklahoma leaving by itself or Kansas leaving by itself is nonsense. Totally different situation than Texas with Tech or Baylor.

All the talk is, if 4 to Pac happens, of the last 5 panicking and jumping into the BE if possible. What if they were sensible and suggested the BE fb schools join them. Then you might have 14, but not 22 or 36 or 40 schools.

_If_ the ACC falls apart due to the SEC raiding off VTech (unlikely, I know), and the B10 manages to add FSU, Miami, GTech, and ND (even more unlikely, I know), then with the following pods:

Pod I:
PSU, FSU, Miami, GTech

Pod II:
Michigan, OSU, MSU, Illinois (or NU)

Pod III:
ND, IU, PU, NU (or Illinois)

Pod IV:
UNL, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minny

(pods I & II always in different divisions)

Illinois and Northwestern can stage neutral site OOC games in Chicago (Soldier Field or Wrigley or the Cell) in the years they don’t meet in conference play.

For that matter, OSU & PSU could hold lucrative OOC games half the time, alternating between Pittsburgh and Cleveland (and sometime Philly for the east coast exposure and Cincy). It’d be especially lucrative (following the Texas model) if the tickets are divided 50-50, as then the tickets would have to be limited to the highest donors.

Even the Little Brown Jug game could be worth playing OOC. To make decent revenue, it may actually have to be played in a baseball stadium (like Target Field or Comerica or maybe even in Chicago, where both schools have large numbers of alums), again to limit supply.

I wouldn’t mind NU playing ND neutral site (East Coast/West Coast/Texas) a few times either. IU may not as well.

“I feel comfortable that we’ll end up in a situation that’s right for the University of Texas, whether that’s belonging to a conference or not,” said R. Steven Hicks, a member of UT’s governing board. “I understand we’re committed to our partnership with ESPN on the Longhorn Network, and I don’t see anything that changes that going forward.”

Or maybe it’s just a sign that all this conference domino stuff is overstated, and the Big-12 will survive with or without A&M (we still aren’t even certain that A&M is gone, I wouldn’t jump to conclusions until the deal is done).

I think the board member is posturing. I would put UT’s probability of going Independent around 5%. Less money to be made as an independent in the long-run and limited options for the Olympic sports. The Pac is really their only option. Especially if Oklahoma makes the first move.

I think there is a lot of posturing going on, but both sides have golden parachutes. Check out Barking Carnival’s write up on the LHN. If they add a mix of SWCish teams and renegotiate the Big 12 contract, they’ll probably make more than they stand to make in the current Big 12 or Pac 12.

I totally disagree, respectfully, but we will all find out soon enough.
I think this has been UT’s end game since the negotiations began with ESPN about the LHN. Texas was trying to piss on everyone around them until they left, now they will blame Texas A&M / Colorado / Nebraska / Arkansas / Oklahoma / Oklahoma A&M for destroying the Big 12 /SWC while they “tried sooooo hard to save it”. Texas is getting their independence just the way they wanted.

UT isn’t BYU. They are not going to let their non-football sports go slumming with some mid-major. And while the Big East schools would no doubt shit themselves at the chance to add UT as a non-football members, I’m not sure that Texas would go for it. All those games out east against tiny private schools most people in the Southwest couldn’t care less about would really hurt their recruiting. Plus, let’s be honest, I doubt UT regards the Big East as worthy competition for teams outside of basketball.

You have to remember that this is a school in Texas you’re talking about. The 3 most important sports in the state are football, football recruiting, and spring football. Plus, I’m not sure baseball is a revenue sport even at Tejas.

BTW, CUSA is a better bet because they have so may TX schools already, so there’s more chance for Longhorn alums to see them play.

they originally said that the aggies have to ‘straighten their affairs’, and my guess is that meant they expected the ags to clearly exit the big 12 or arrange for an amicable release.

the ags didn’t do that. they issued a notice that they are looking around and if they get an invitation that suits them, they are gone. that’s not what the sec asked for.

what this stipulation does, assuming it is, in fact, the case, is force a&m’s hand. the aggies tried to pull a fast one and slip away into the night, but the sec has clearly made their case that they don’t want to have to deal with any baggage. the ags have to satisfy the sec and quit playing around or forget about it.

my guess is that there are two, or maybe three, unhappy camps in the big 12 over this, if it is real. the ags, of course, the sooners, since they are looking for greener pastures as well, and the longhorns, who are wanting the ags gone.

Why would the ISU and Baylor agree to waive litigation? Even if they have no intention of actually suing they have nothing to gain by helping A&M leave and hasten the end (or at least severe diminishing) of the Big XII especially since A&M is presently trying to negotiate down its exit penalties to the tune of about $14 million?

The exchange is A&M agreeing not to sue about the exit fees and agreeing on an amount. In return the Big 12 doesn’t sue A&M or SEC. I think Frug is right. ISU and Baylor have a decent case supporting exit fees and the potential $ loss to them (from $15 million annual TV money to $1 million in CUSA) dwarves any exit fees.

I don’t know that this is true and if true if it stops the SEC, but it does make sense.

If it was 10-2, I would guess S. Carolina or Florida as the other one. They have the least to benefit from Texas recruiting and would likely prefer Bama, Auburn or LSU more often instead of getting A&M.

SEC strategy…
Doesn’t it really look like Slive has forged an ACC alliance to box in the Big Ten? Permission to negotiate w/ Mizzou & WVU. Nothing protects SEC country like a solid ACC. Pick off WVU and then perhaps the ACC goes to 16 w/ Pitt, SU, RU & UConn. Add Mizzou to the SEC while OU & oSu go off to the PAC and what does Delaney have left to choose from? Kansas may well be headed PAC’s way since UT won’t let go of LHN. Either way, doesn’t appear Big Ten has much to choose from outside of hoping that LHN doesn’t make it?

It was always going to be WVU or MO for the SEC. On the MO board they’re saying WVU has a 2 year notice requirement and $5M exit fee to leave the Least. If the 12 breaks up completely MO is left without such issues. MO seems to be trending as the top choice. Biiggest problem I see is they would prefer a team for the East Div. If they pick MO they may stick MO in the East instead of moving ALA or AUB………….

@John Not sure ACC teams were ever in the cards for B1G anyway. The football powers (VT, FSU, and Miami) don’t really fit. Maryland makes some sense, but only as a complimentary addition along with somebody like ND. Slive didn’t need an ACC “alliance”. ACC was always solid.

@John – I don’t think it’s quite like that for the SEC. More likely, as I’ve been saying all along, is that the ACC is simply much tighter than people give them credit for. The Big 12 and Big East were essentially leagues built upon TV arrangements, whereas the ACC is in the same vein as the Big Ten and SEC as being more than just a business partnership. There’s not really a “boxing in” of the Big Ten when the most important target is actually within the conference’s own footprint (Notre Dame). One “king” like Nebraska is worth exponentially more than a school whose main value is simply its location.

The thing is I dont see any confrence building an alliance when it comes down to expansion. Everyone seems to be looking out for thier own intrests first and the other confrences be damned. If they wanted to box in the Big Ten they would not have poached from the Big 12 in the first place. Why would Slive give Delaney and co a chance to land Texas or an OU even if the chance was remote?

I can see the Big Ten staying at 12 even if the SEC and Pac went to 16 unless a major addition could be found. At least the Illini are in a stable confrence, imagine how all the have nots in the big 12 are feeling this morning.

@Illinifan82
It’s not just nots. I grew up w/ a Big 8 banner on the wall next to my Tiger paw. KSU, ISU and yes, even KU, should not have to put up with this. Some may end up with decent homes, but lets not kid ourselves, the Big East is NOT where any of these schools would prefer to be. Just don’t understand how it got to this point & why University Presidents couldn’t have enough foresight to tell Texas to stick it where the oil don’t flow long before now?

What does Texas A&M do next? Threaten a counter lawsuit? I am not lawyer (calling for you Frank), but it seems that by the Big 12 already releasing A&M and the SEC, they allowed this ball to move forward. By pulling the rug at the last second, does A&M have grounds to go after Baylor?

The question is, after the Big 12 is blown up and the SEC gets to 14, what is ESPN’s next move?

I know the Big East is the weakest of the BCS football conferences. However, ESPN has offered them a 250% raise (which the BE turned down) just to keep them from going to market and possibly ending up on NBC. Now, if they get Kansas, the BE basketball package would be even more attractive to an NBC who wants their sports channel to be a competitor to ESPN.

If they can eliminate the Big East, the NBC sports channel has only the NHL, MLS and the odd ND football game until more sports rights packages become available in 2015-2016.

If ESPN was going to pay the Big East a couple of hundred million dollars a year, is it worth for them to spend some of that money to get the B10 and SEC to go to 16 and end up with the 4th conference as 16 teams of ACC and BE leftovers (that fall under the ACC contract)?

That letter sure looks like a bang-up waiver. The condition precedent of going public by 9/7 looks to run in favor of the B12, and, thus, should not provide any wiggle room for Baylor. I think this deal gets done, but not w/out a check from aTm. The real question now is how much getting out cleanly is worth to aTm. 20 million? 40? 50?

To be sure, a proper waiver by the B12 would have run 100 pages at least and would have been full of explicit language. I think a judge in Texas, for example, could easily find the letter to be an ineffective waiver for lots of reasons. I just think it improves aTm’s bargaining position and the deal will get done.

Does the lack of performance prior to Baylor’s withdrawal give Baylor substantial leverage, especially considering the dramatically changed circumstances in the Big 12? The SEC hadn’t invited A&M and A&M hadn’t written any checks to the Big 12.

I suspect Baylor is not going to do any waivers for OU & OSU, let alone UT.

I am a lawyer. That’s nowhere near long & absolute enough to be a waiver. Giving up or assigning legal claims is taken extremely seriously and the SEC lawyers would never have assumed said letter was a waiver. Baylor is simply changing their minds on an informal promise, which parties can always do and which is why everyone wants formal, legally effective waivers (or outright assignment of claims).

The SEC isn’t being nefarious, by the way. A TI suit has potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in economic damages to the lesser Big 12 schools if it costs them their TV contract/conference. Even a low probability of that would be enough for them to be extra-careful.

Also, maybe someone at Baylor’s BoR woke up and realized THEY could be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they went along with this. Assisting something that blows up the Big 12 is manifestly not in Baylor’s interests.

On what grounds is Baylor suing? Tortuous Interference? That seems far fetched, as A&M/SEC have done everything by the book and in order. Breach of contract against A&M? Which to me would have a few more leg to stand on as A&M would be breaching the Big 12’s TV deal, but that’s why the Conference has exit penalties.

Baylor isn’t suing on specific grounds. They are just saying they are not giving up their right to sue. They would probably sue over TI and breach of contract as well as any other ancillary claims they could think of.

The threat of a suit is enough to get the SEC to back off. You see this frequently in M&A transactions. If there’s a contingent claim out there that is potentially enormous, even if it is low probability, it can be a deal killer.

Baylor doesn’t need grounds to sue because they don’t actually need to sue period. According to the conditional invitation, all they have to do is not pledge to waive litigation to derail this whole deal for the Aggies.

I’ve talked to two sources in the past 36 hours who have a keen understanding of the realignment puzzle in general and the University of Texas culture in particular … and neither believes UT will join the Pac-12. Ever.

[snip]

But sources believe there are larger issues at play that will keep Texas out of the Pac.

“It has a different culture,” one source said.

Another suggested UT’s future conference affiliation is more about state political aims than football revenue. And the Lone Star State’s true power-brokers have always looked east — to the halls of Washington in particular.

[snip]

One source believes UT will do whatever it takes to keep the Big 12 breathing, even if that means making fiscal and Longhorn Network concessions to Oklahoma.

And in the event of departures by Texas A&M and Missouri and the Oklahoma schools?

The Longhorns — with the aid of ESPN, which wants the Big 12 to survive — would attempt to reconstitute the conference with Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas and Kansas State, Iowa State and a handful of newcomers (Houston? SMU? Pittsburgh? Louisville?) before throwing in the towel.

I believe that is a pretty likely scenario as to how this plays out. I also see that Texas has thought through all of their steps in order for the ‘source’ to get to the conclusion that Texas really wants (in my opinion, I know most disagree with me though).

Notice how they…
A) prefer to keep the Big 12 together – but actually run EVERYBODY off
B) Piss on the idea of Texas in the Pac 12 (because that is the most logical solution if they aren’t going to be independent) – saying cultural and academic differences, except the ‘cowboy’ culture fits more western and Stanford, Cal, and UCLA don’t count.
C) Blame the politicians for wanting to look east – Even though they know the LHN will NOT fly in the SEC.
D) We’ll make some fiscal concessions to Oklahoma – too little, too late – without A&M, Oklahoma is convinced the 12 is dead
E) Make some lame-assed attempt to draw in some schools – many of whom have already been floated (while OU and OSU were still on the table) and they laughed at you myopia.
F) Are aware that a 6 team conference is not going to work so then, and only then, will Texas throw in the towel and go independent. But you all left us with no choice.

I wonder who Wilner talked to. Probably not anyone at UT. UT has always looked to the Pac as its alternative stopping point. The state has a lot more ties to California than to the midwest and probably more than to the Southeast other than Louisiana. The last President went from UT to Cal. UT looks at Cal, UCLA, the other UCs and the Big 10 schools as its peers. Powers got his undergrad at Cal. Wilner’s a good knowledgable writer, but I think he whiffed here.

I assume you’re talking about Austin/UT, not the state. No doubt that Austin feels a kinship with the West Coast, but as political and cultural opposites I never got the feeling Texans (as a whole) felt anything but disdain for the West Coast.

Actually felt bad for some of the more naive Sooner/Pokes fans after visiting a couple Pac-12 blogs, at Espn and SB Nation. They seemed like nice people, excited by the prospect of joining the PAC, but what they got back was a wave of condescension. People here talk about the Big Ten culture and how these schools aren’t a good cultural fit, but I think Oklahoma (without Texas) is in for surprise at how they are perceived on the west coast -and how resistant some of the schools are to accepting them.

I think Baylor sues on every conceivable theory that they can come up w/. Baylor would be crazy to only sue aTm (which may have sovereign immunity arguments) and not the SEC (a very suable non-profit corp w/ deep pockets).

There is no safe-harbor for TI. Just because you come out and say you are going to interfere w/ a contract, doesn’t some how make your actions OK. But I HIGHLY doubt any judge will force aTm to perform its obligations under the Big12 contracts. This is really about (1) time (how long will it take to resolve litigation), and (2) money (what will aTm pay). Ultimately, if those two variables get too out-of-whack (ie, a year of litigation + 50 million in fees), aTm might be in a bind. And, as far as I can tell, Baylor doesn’t HAVE to answer to any Texas politicians.

And maybe its a clever strategy to delay this until at least October 15th Baylor at A&M. Have A&M show its character by its treatment of Baylor and its fans and get the SEC to rescind its invitation. If I were a Baylor fan, I wouldn’t go to College Station on that day.

and don’t forget that Baylor’s President is Ken Starr. Starr is a former Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher litigation parter. He took on the Presdient of the United States. This B12 scuffle is nothing compared w/ the litigation he’s been through. I find this part hillarious, of all the university president’s for Baylor to have, they’ve got one of the best litigators in the country.

yeah, but in that case, the schools followed the Big East by-laws requiring just 1 million in exit fees and a year’s notice. the lawsuit was a crappy “secret conspiracy” theory suit. here, the money is MUCH higher and there are specific contract provisions that aTm will have to breach in order to leave. I’m not saying Baylor has a winner suit, I just think they have the short-term power to cost aTm time and money.

How many hurdles does Texas A&M need to overcome? This whole process was very fast-paced to only be slowed down to make sure all of the proverbial t’s and i’s were done correctly. I do wish that A&M does not pay a dime to Baylor to drop this threat (at this time that is what it is, but may change later).

The Aggies are losing their mind right now. Already received a delete/kick/ban from TexAgs this morning for posting this.

Because none of you seem to be able to understand why Baylor would welch, let’s go through the math. BTW, if Boren doesn’t shoot his mouth off last Friday about leaving for the Pac-12 – Baylor probably signs off. Once TAMU’s leaving starts the dominoes, Baylor is going to stop you in anyway it can.

So this about two things – athletic dollars and enrollment AQ vs non-AQ. The athletic dollars we know call it about $10MM. The real money though is in enrollment.

The key is the assumption of how much AQ vs non-AQ enrollment loss is for Baylor. My source tells me the scenarios used were between 15% and 33% for Baylor going to a non-AQ. Type in whatever you want but I have heard enough of you trash Southland, WAC, MWC, C-USA to know that there quite a few young people choose their school based partially on athletic conference.

Now the math:

Best Case Scenario
Baylor loses 5% of their new undergraduate population going forward 12,500 x 5% = 625.
Current tuition and fees are $38,279, assume Baylor students pay ~40% of that $16,000.

This does not take into account future loss of alumni donations, research grants, rising price of tuition, etc., etc. Throw in your own numbers but that’s the equation Baylor is facing and the reason we will not let you go and are more then happy to take 100 years worth of Aggie hate.

Also, those numbers are probably what the SEC is most afraid of in terms of a lawsuit. We may only have 5% chance of winning the lawsuit, but that lawsuit is going to start at roughly 1 billion. =PV(.10,100,100,000,000) x .05
Expected Value = -$50,000,000

Thus I come back too, if you want Baylor’s sign-off on your move to the SEC then its in your best interest to help find us a spot otherwise we are going to all be here for awhile.

Cuss us, call us Gaylor, how much we are enjoying the butt hurt, whatever – this is about dollars and Aggie hate doesn’t change the equation.

Their acceptance rate was 31%. Even if they lose 15% to 33% of their applications (highly unlikely) just due to getting demoted to non-AQ status, their acceptance rate would just rise to around 40-50% in order to maintain their enrollment, assuming a constant yield. If the yield goes down, then the acceptance rate will have to rise farther.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with Baylor’s enrollment.

A loss of prestige? Yes. A loss of alumni donations associated with said loss of prestige? Yes. A loss of athletic department funding from AQ football (attendance, TV contract, etc.)? Yes. Those are the major things at issue here, especially the last one.

FWIW, I’ve worked at admissions at a private university, and the way that these universities work is they target enrollment numbers based on formulas that approximate the impact of changes to the yield and application numbers. For a school like Baylor with an acceptance rate at 31%, they will easily be able to maintain their class regardless of a situation like going non-AQ.

The loss of athletics department revenue (and possible loss of donations due to loss of AQ “prestige”) is where Baylor will take a pocketbook hit.

That’s assuming you lowered your admission standards to accept 50%. That’s not something that’s great for a university nor research $, USNWR rankings, etc – you still end up in the same place, a huge money hole in the middle of the budget.

Fair enough, my point was that the biggest argument is going to be the direct hit on the athletics department and the secondary hit to donations.

Losing 15-20k fans in the seats per game from their current 35-40k is really where the big hit will come from over time. That loss combined with the loss of the TV contract will make it much more difficult to fund the athletics department.

Internal projections based on surveyed incoming student interests and preferences. The key assumption is whether you think its 2%, 5% or 20%, its a big hole you blow in middle of the budget regardless.

That was last year. Applications to TCU this (post-Rose Bowl) year were over 18,000 for 1,800 spots. I can only imagine the boost Boise State has gotten from their football team; that place was a junior college not too long ago. Who knows – maybe losing the seat at the AQ table will be the best thing that ever happened to Baylor football. There are certainly plenty of TCU fans who feel that getting left out of the Big 12 ended an era of complacency and forced us to renew our commitment to our athletics program.

We are certainly pleased with the action taken last night by the presidents and chancellors of the Southeastern Conference to unanimously accept Texas A&M as the league’s 13th member. However, this acceptance is conditional, and we are disappointed in the threats made by one of the Big 12 member institutions to coerce Texas A&M into staying in Big 12 Conference. These actions go against the commitment that was made by this university and the Big 12 on Sept. 2. We are working diligently to resolve any and all issues as outlined by the SEC

@Duffman
Ran across that Dosh article about individual school’s media revenue that you were looking for. There’s also a different site that was posted here at one time that has everyone’s revenue by category (at least the public schools) and one of the categories is that separate media revenue.

If OU, T Boone Pickens, and Aggie leave, the most likely outcome may be a merger of the B12 and BEast leftovers with UT going independent in football, just like with Notre Dame. WV or MO to SEC would leave it at 14 fb and 22 for all sports.

I do think there’s a ND-Texas scenario that’s still possible (albeit remote in terms of odds). If Texas goes football independent in the Big 12 with TTech, Baylor, Kansas, KState, Missouri, Iowa State, and the SEC invites WVU, then the Big 12 could invite Pitt, Rutgers, Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU, and Syracuse to recreate the Big 12. Heck, even if they lose Missouri to the SEC, that might still be possible.

In that case, the Big 12 would have 12 football teams (with the remaining 6 as the Big 12 West, and the Big East teams as the Big 12 East, and with Texas football independent, and ND joining as well in all other sports.

It’s a remote scenario to be sure, but the Big 12 could have life if Texas could hold it together and poach off Big East teams. I don’t know how likely that is, but ND could support that if it is a stronger guarantee of its long-term football independence.

Nope. Don’t agree. UT wants to keep B12 intact. MO not interested in leaving anywhere except for B1G, and that ain’t happenin, so I look for OU/OSU to stay and just add BYU. If OU/OSU leaves, look for Big 12(UT) to go hunting for OUT OF STATE PEOPLE. Think BYU, New Mexico, Air Force for the first three, then Colorado State, Boise State, Houston as , long shots.

MU, KU and KSU will go to Big East if all else fails, but they really want to keep the Big 12 alive. MU to SEC is NOT happening. WVA is the school of choice for the 14th spot.

Amid the latest round of conference realignment discussions, I want all KU alumni to know that Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little and Dr. Sheahon Zenger, KU athletics director, are aggressively pursuing the best possible outcome for KU. As the chancellor expressed yesterday, they will continue to keep our community informed.

The unsurpassed loyalty of the Jayhawk Nation is one of KU’s greatest assets. Thanks for all you do to strengthen KU.

I liked the comment about Mississippi State not being afraid to compete against schools with bigger budgets. He also comments that A&M is not under any circumstances going to stay in the Big 12, even if they don’t get in the SEC.

Can you clarify for me why the LHN can’t be folded into the PAC tv deal without openin it to Txtech? As I understand it we’re largely talking tier 3 rights. So why can’t equal sharing prevail for tier 1 and tier 2 rights, then allow each university to secure tier 3 rights however they see fit. For some, that might mean a regional PAC channel. For UT it’s LHN. I’d think that the biggest brands might value the option of their own channel, such as OU and USC, and perhaps also UCLA, Stanford and Oregon.

The Pac, if I understand correctly, retains all rights (including Tier3) for FB as well as BB games and pulls all into the confernece pot that will then be distributed equally.

One of the reasons for the big TV Contract (other than the hot market) was the sheer inventory available I believe. Scott also was smart enough to retain up to Tier 1 rights for the Pac regional networks as well.

That is correct. All rights are with the conference, and essentially the P12N is a junior partner with ESPN and Fox. The term “tier” is not really applicable as there is only one group of events on which to bid for a part of, ie the pac 12. Next year the P12N will have first selection of games in two weeks and second selection in five of the others. The order of selection will also be determined prior to the setting of the schedule. All rights that have not been assigned to ESPN and Fox remain with the conference

@Wethorn – The issue is that the Pac-12 just got all school TV rights assigned to the conference (where it was a quasi-Big 12 setup previously) in order to get the new massive TV deal into place. This included an agreement from USC and UCLA to share revenue equally if certain revenue targets were hit (which happened). So, for UT to come in and demand what USC and UCLA just gave up seems to be a non-starter on its face. In theory, the money generated by UT might trump all of that from a pure financial standpoint, but I don’t think the Pac-12 is solely looking at it from that angle. Stability and a perception of equality among members matters a ton, too (as Baylor is finding out).

Also, I think UT is uniquely positioned in terms of being able to have a viable TV network with the size of its population base (the entire state of Texas) and rabid fans. The only other school in the country that comes close to that combo is Florida (and the Gators have much stronger in-state competition from FSU and Miami). USC has the population base, but not the rabid fans. Oregon is the opposite. So, that’s why I don’t believe individual networks are anywhere near the selling point for other power schools in the manner that it was a selling point for UT. That’s why everyone in the Big Ten and Pac-12 have signed up for conference-wide networks. Not even Notre Dame is well-positioned for its own network – their draw is suited to over-the-air coverage, where they have a dispersed nationwide base of casual fans. Successful sports networks, though, are really based upon intense concentrated regional interest.

This is both a blessing and a curse for UT in the sense that the LHN could become golden handcuffs – none of the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC or ACC would accept the LHN, which means UT’s only options if it wants to keep the channel are to (1) keep the Big 12 alive, (2) try forming a different conference or (3) go independent. Keeping the Big 12 without OU would look like the SWC. Forming a different conference would likely just result in a mish-mash of Big 12 and Big East members (as other power schools, as I’ve noted, don’t really find having individual school networks to be nearly as compelling as UT does). Going independent would likely have a hugely detrimental effect on UT’s non-football sports. I’m not really sure what compromise there could be on the LHN because it’s so fundamentally at odds with how the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC run things.

“The Big Ten has already approved an arrangement by which Texas could become a member of the Big Ten conference, and maintain its Longhorn Network. All bowl and other revenues would be divided in the same way as the other schools, however Texas would not share in the revenues of the Big Ten Network.”